reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
In my recent conversation with Tucker Carlson, I discussed various political topics, including my views on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I remarked that Harris is a "puppet" and noted Trump’s resilience despite assassination attempts. I expressed concern over rising illegal immigration affecting swing states and the potential for a permanent Democratic majority. I also addressed election fraud and the need for voter ID. Additionally, I hinted at fears among billionaires regarding a Trump victory and the Epstein client list. Lastly, I touched on vaccine mandates and my need for increased security if Trump cuts federal agencies.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Elon Musk Drops Epstein Bombshell in Jaw-Dropping Tucker Carlson Interview You won’t believe who he named. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/HYubZlYbIL
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In an “off-the-cuff” conversation with Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk wasted no time going straight into politics and the 2024 election. He broke his silence on his deleted tweet about Kamala Harris, explaining that nobody even bothers trying to assassinate Kamala Harris because she's just another "puppet" of the "machine." “Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet,” Musk said. “She's safe,” he continued. “Like, they tried to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.” Musk went on to explain that Trump inherently has the "constitution of an ox,” even though he doesn't work out and consumes “cheeseburgers and Diet Coke and stuff.” “I think he [Trump] just inherently has a strong constitution,” Musk said, adding that he is of “sound mind and body and strong backbone” after two assassination attempts.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 joked that no one is bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless, as she is just a "puppet." Speaker 1 agreed, stating she is irrelevant and replaceable. Speaker 0 clarified that some people misinterpreted the joke as a call for assassination.
The speakers contrasted this with the two attempts to kill Trump with actual guns and bullets. Speaker 0 noted that Trump doesn't seem rattled by the attempts, attributing it to his strong constitution, despite his unhealthy diet and lack of exercise. Speaker 2 confirmed that Trump didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of assassination attempts. Speaker 0 agreed that Trump seemed of sound mind and body with a strong backbone.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've been trashing Kamala nonstop.
Speaker 1: Oh, I know.
Speaker 0: Well, not I mean, the Kamala puppet, I call her. You know? The the the the machine that the Kamala puppet represents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She's irrelevant. I mean, she's
Speaker 2: not even
Speaker 0: No. No. Like, like, I I made a I made a joke, which I realized deleted, which is, like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless.
Speaker 1: What do you achieve?
Speaker 2: No. It's
Speaker 0: totally fine.
Speaker 1: Another puppet. Exact that's It's no point in killing It's
Speaker 2: deep and true, though.
Speaker 0: Nobody's tried to kill Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: It's imp it's pretty pointless. Totally. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: You actually put that up? Yeah. No. Some people interpreted it as as as as though I was calling for people to
Speaker 1: to Of course.
Speaker 0: To assassinate her. But I but I but I was like but I was like, no. We even you know? I was I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered
Speaker 2: to try? It's not worth it.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's an endless supply. Yeah. I'm like, nobody would it's it's absurd. It
Speaker 2: could be anybody.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. You you nobody's gonna try to nobody tries to ask me to pop it. Of course not.
Speaker 2: A marionette.
Speaker 0: Yeah. A marionette. So it's like, you know?
Speaker 2: It's hilarious.
Speaker 1: What? She's safe. Like,
Speaker 0: I don't I like, to to try to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: He shot in the air right in fucking butt butler where I was. And,
Speaker 2: He doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you?
Speaker 0: This doesn't seem what? Rattled. He's I mean, he's the constitution of an ox. It seems. You know, it's it's not like working out and eating healthy.
And he's
Speaker 2: Okay. We gotta tape this. Oh, yeah. We're good. Oh, good.
Yeah.
Speaker 1: So so so He's he's not like, let
Speaker 0: me eat another salad. That's not no. Or or work out, you know, you know, fastidiously. That's he he I I felt like how he doesn't work out, and he eats, you know, cheeseburgers and diet coke and stuff. And because it it just I think he just inherently has a a strong constitution.
So when
Speaker 2: you I mean, you're just with him. He didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of 2 assassination attempts?
Speaker 0: No. He seemed, of, you know, sound mind and body and, strong backbone.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The conversation shifted to Musk explaining how it’s “pretty fun” to be “all in” on Donald Trump, even if the downsides of that choice come with some dire consequences. These remarks came after Musk trashed Kamala Harris, marveling at how “amazing” it was that he spoke at Trump’s rally without a teleprompter. “Wow. Amazing. I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy,” he mocked. Musk laughed that he is “all in the deep end [on Trump],” acknowledging that “in the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance on me.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states their remarks were impromptu, without a teleprompter. They deny using a media consultant, saying they just thought about what to say and spoke off the cuff.
When asked about being "all in," the speaker confirms they are in the deep end, describing it as "fun." They acknowledge the possibility of "vengeance" in the "unlikely event" of a loss.
The speaker states they are a major government contractor doing "essential work." They claim their product is better and costs less, allowing them to compete for and win contracts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Remarks I made there were impromptu. There's no teleprompter or anything. I just I was just speaking extemporaneously. Are you the only rich guy who does now, like, a media consultant? No.
I don't media consultant. Yeah. No. I've noticed. Obviously.
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I mean no. I I just, no. I just thought about what what I what I wanna say, and I just spoke off the cuff, no teleprompter, nothing.
Good for you. Yeah. I can talk I don't Look. Like, I'm like, right now, I'm just talking. Look at me.
Wow. Amazing. I can even believe it. I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy.
But if if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him. All in. All in. In the deep end? Yeah.
No. You are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom. No. No.
I'm I'm like I'm like rolling around. I don't like picking my I'm, like, baaah. It's all in, baby. Is it fun? Yeah.
It's pretty fun. How about I mean, there may be some in the hopefully, unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance, on me. Are you kidding me? I mean, it's possible. It's possible?
You've got to be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes. Yeah. But we're not it's not like, you know, we do useful, essential work that we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better and costs less.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Musk then raised a shocking and disturbing revelation that there has been a 700% surge in illegal immigration to some key swing states over the past 3 years, saying that this election is the "last election" if Democrats win. Why does he say that? Because “these swing state margins are sometimes 10, 20 thousand votes. So what happens if you put hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state?" Musk asked. “When somebody is granted asylum, they are fast-tracked. They can get a green card, and then five years after the green card, they can get citizenship, and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat,” Musk explained. By 2028, every swing state will have turned blue, leaving America under a permanent Dem supermajority. That's why Musk calls this the "last election" if Kamala wins.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 believes that if Trump doesn't win the election, it will be the last election because Democrats are importing illegals via a secret CBP border app program. He claims this is illegal, but the DOJ isn't stopping it.
According to Speaker 1, government websites show triple-digit increases in illegals in swing states, sometimes up to 700% over the last 3 years. He asserts that asylum seekers are fast-tracked to citizenship and vote Democrat, prioritizing bringing family to the US and being beholden to Democratic handouts.
Speaker 1 predicts another four years of a Democratic administration will lead to legalizing enough illegals to eliminate swing states, turning the US into a single-party country like California, which became a super-majority Democrat state after the 1986 amnesty. He states California recently passed a law making voter ID illegal in any election.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So but back to the original question, you know, about the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, you had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking?
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. So I My view is is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're gonna have. That, the Democrats the Dem Machine has been, importing so many people, bringing in so many illegals, flying in with this, like, CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by DOJ to actually to stop it from happening.
They're transporting, large numbers of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website, so like from the Democrat administered government websites. Where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats. And, there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states, and in some cases, it's like 700% over the last 3 years.
Now, these swing state margins are, you know, sometimes 10, 20000 votes. So what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state. And for the when somebody is granted asylum, they are fast tracked. They can get a green card, and then 5 years after the green card, they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
And sometimes I get this rebuttal of, like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align
Speaker 0: with, sort
Speaker 1: of, the far left sort of work ideology. I said, that's true, but, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States, and the the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote down. That's what happens.
So my prediction is if there's another 4 years of a damn administration, they will legalize so many, illegals that are there, that the next election, there won't be any swing states. And it will be a single party country, just like California is a single party state. It's a super majority Dem state state in California. Because of immigration? Yes.
The California was, fairly reliably Republican. Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. Yes. So there was a 986 amnesty.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And thereafter, California trended very strongly then, and as at this point, I think, 65, 70 percent dem, something like that. It's super majority dem. The California legislature Yes. Is more than 2 thirds Democrat.
Speaker 0: Has it improved the state?
Speaker 1: No. It's it's not. And they they California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even this is even real, but California just passed a law making it illegal, to require voter ID in any election at all in California. Do you know that?
No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week. It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council.
And and a friend of mine who is this can he lives in Palo Alto was like it it was like, is this actually real? And he went to, like, vote in, like, some city council election. He tried to show them his ID, and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your ID.
Speaker 0: Have they extended this change?
Speaker 1: What's going on right now.
Speaker 0: By the way,
Speaker 1: they're proud of it. They're not hiding it.
Speaker 0: But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor or buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's illegal.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're gonna ID you 6 ways a Sunday. Yeah. They try California is trying to make it basically equal to owning its own a gun.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Without skipping a beat, Musk turned his attention to what few billionaires would dare talk about—election fraud and voter IDs. Without one single stutter, Musk declared, “The purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections.” “The same people that demanded vaccine IDs if you want to travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required,” he added. Musk pointed out how it is “literally impossible” to prove fraud if no voter ID is required, saying it enables “large-scale fraud.” “So, yeah, the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections, obviously. There can be no other explanation,” Musk concluded.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes that demanding vaccine IDs while opposing voter ID laws is hypocritical. They claim the purpose of not requiring voter ID is to enable large-scale election fraud that cannot be proven, because it's impossible to prove without ID.
The speaker dismisses the argument that voter ID laws are racist, calling it "insane" and "patronizing" to suggest people can't obtain identification. They argue that it's nearly impossible to live in the country without an ID, as it's required for almost everything except voting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And and the same people that demanded vaccine IDs for if you want to travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required. Is there any reason Obviously hypocritical. To pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud? It's it's for it's it's it's so that fraud can never cannot be proven. So it it it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it, because how would you prove it?
It's literally impossible. No I no ID. You you're not even allowed to show your ID. It's insane. Well, it is insane.
Insane. So yeah. The the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections. Obviously. There can be no other explanation.
I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing. People don't have IDs? Could you live in this country without an ID? Yeah. I mean, their their their common rebuttal is, like, it's racist to require ID and which is insane.
I think it's actually race racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously. But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think it's even possible. Yeah. You can't do anything.
Yeah. You need ID for everything. Like, the list of the things you need ID for is basically everything, except voting.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
While you’re here, don’t forget to follow (@VigilantFox) and hit the bell 🔔 for more threads like this one. https://t.co/gsTQF3gnqh
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The bombshell dropped when Musk suggested that Bill Gates, Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, and other billionaires are “terrified” of a Trump victory because if he wins, the Epstein client list is coming out. Musk said this after declaring that there is a “strong overlap” between Kamala's top 100 puppet masters and the Epstein client list. Musk called it “mind-blowing” that hundreds of January 6th protesters have been sentenced to prison, yet there’s been no action to prosecute the “worst offender on the Epstein client list.” “That’s insane!” he emphasized. “I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that if Trump wins, that Epstein client list is going to become public. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome,” Musk said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Kamala Harris is a "marionette" controlled by over 100 "puppet masters." The speaker claims to know most of them and suggests a strong overlap between these individuals and the Epstein client list.
The speaker is surprised that no one on the Epstein client list has been prosecuted, while many January 6th protesters have been imprisoned. The speaker believes a reason for Kamala Harris's support is that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list will become public, which terrifies some billionaires backing Harris.
The speaker specifically names Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates as potentially nervous individuals, noting Hoffman was the speaker's VP of business development at PayPal 24 years ago.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But you'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter. So, you know, it's it's really whoever controls the teleprompter. It's the actual sort of those those who's actually in charge.
Speaker 1: And who is that,
Speaker 0: do you think? Well, I've I've tried to put it down. It's it's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it seems to be it's it's like, Kamala is sort of a a marionette with, you know, a thousand puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's or maybe it's somewhere north of a 100, is what it seems
Speaker 1: like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them.
Speaker 0: I probably know most of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So what I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, you
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I should say, I think you voted
Speaker 0: for I I I'd I'd like to see a matchup of of of those we quote the the the top 100 puppet masters in the FD and client list.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's some overlap?
Speaker 0: Overlap. Strong overlap.
Speaker 1: When are we going to see that list, do you think?
Speaker 0: I don't know. It's it's it's it's mind blowing that that it, that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on on the Epstein client list, they have not even tried to prosecute even 1. Is that that's insane.
Speaker 1: Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They've they're kind of occupied.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the on the Epstein client list.
Speaker 1: Will that ever come out, do you think?
Speaker 0: Know, I I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that, if if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable? Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I only ask that because you can certainly just look at them and you're like, that that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yes. Reid Hoffman was my vice president of business development at PayPal Yeah. 24 years ago.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In another striking moment, Musk entered the vaccine debate, saying, “We shouldn't force people to take vaccines,” adding, “I believe in freedom.” Musk explained that he's not “anti-vax” and that he believes vaccines have done a lot of good, but he also believes that the “quality control on vaccines” should be “incredibly good if we're giving them to children and whatnot.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vaccines should be subject to scrutiny to ensure high quality control, especially since they are given to children. People should not be forced to take vaccines.
America is supposed to be the land of liberty, freedom, and opportunity. The country should maximize individual liberty, where success is based on talent and hard work. These two fundamental values have made America great, and losing them will lead to a swift decline.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That doesn't mean that vaccines should not have any scrutiny. Of course, they should we should be making sure that the quality control of vaccines is incredibly good, get since we if we're giving them to children and whatnot. And we shouldn't we shouldn't force people to take vaccines. That itself is a controversial statement, that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force people to take vaccines.
No. Yeah. So just to yes. I believe in freedom. Like, you know Yeah.
I've noticed. I'd like, the the you know, America is supposed to be the land of liberty. Yeah. You know, freedom freedom and opportunity. So that, we we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty, and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on, your talent and hard work.
Yes. Those are 2 fundamental values. That that's what that's what's made America great, and and if we lose those, we will our decline will be swerved.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In the final moments of the interview, Musk said he's going to need to beef up his security team if the Trump administration starts slashing federal agencies. “I'll probably need, if this happens, quite a significant security team because someone might literally go postal on me,” he warned. Musk pointed out the staggering number of over 440 federal agencies in the US government, suggesting it could easily be cut down to 99 without major consequences. He recounted his own experience at X, where he slashed 80% of the staff and “actually improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last eight years.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 confirms he will continue to help Trump if he is selected. He refers to a potential "government efficiency commission" or "Department of Government Efficiency," possibly called "Doge."
Speaker 1 states that at Twitter, they cut about 80% of staff and improved the site's features more in the past year and a half than in the previous eight years.
Speaker 1 suggests reviewing all federal agencies to determine if all 428 are necessary, noting there are more agencies than years since the US was founded. He believes they should reduce the number of agencies and eliminate overlapping responsibilities. He also advocates for reviewing regulations to remove those that are not sensible, as regulators tend to add more regulations every year. He anticipates needing a significant security team due to potential unpopularity and threats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last question. You you really kind of pulled out a lot of stops to help Trump. You're on stage yesterday. If he gets selected, will you continue to help him
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now? Absolutely. So we've talked about, kind of a government efficiency commission or the Department of Government Efficiency, which is a funny What what percent?
Speaker 0: Sorry. I was laughing. I love it. You you managed to make it sound a little sinister. Government efficiency.
What percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there?
Speaker 1: You mean Twitter? Rather.
Speaker 0: I beg your pardon. Sorry. You I just you've just been talking about Google. Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we we're about 80%. And we've actually, improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last, I don't know, 8 years, with 20% of the staff.
Speaker 0: So Just for I just wanna throw that out for context. So you've talked to Trump about
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. He's he has mentioned publicly several times, and he's first point of of having some kind of, you know, government efficiency commission, can call it Department of Government Efficiency Doge. I kinda like Doge. It's more it's more fun.
Yeah. And, where we just take a look at at at all the federal agencies and say, do we really need whatever it is, 428 federal agencies? Like, there's so many that people have not even heard of, or and that have overlapping areas of responsibility we should I don't know. Probably, we should get I mean, there there are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States, which means that we've created more than 1 federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot.
That's a lot. That's a lot. So we should have that seems crazy. I think we should be able to get away with, 99 agencies. I don't know.
That seems a lot like a lot of agencies. It's a lot. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: 2 per state. That's what I mean.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. We should have fewer agencies, and, and they certainly shouldn't have overlapping responsibilities, and and then we we need some kind of we just need a review of regulations to say which ones are sensible and which ones are not. Because because if you've got regulators, every year, they're gonna add more regulations. It's just automatic. Like like, they just output regulations, and and then and there's more laws and regulations every year until, basically, everything's legal, to get get anything done.
So we need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense. I think I'm saying very obvious things.
Speaker 0: You're you are saying obvious things. Yeah. So that's will be very unpopular things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll probably need if if this happens, I see quite a significant security team, so that because because someone might literally go post alarm me from the post office.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading! If you found this post helpful, please do me a favor and follow this page before you go. To hear everything Elon Musk had to say, check out the video below for his full conversation with Tucker Carlson. https://t.co/QaTSaMmhRV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 expresses deep concern about the future of democracy, believing the upcoming election is the last chance to prevent a one-party state due to unchecked illegal immigration and the Democratic party's policies. He criticizes the lack of voter ID laws, citing California's recent legislation as an example of enabling voter fraud.
He defends his support for Trump, arguing that the "Dem Machine" is importing illegals to swing states, leading to a demographic shift that will eliminate swing states and create a single-party system. He believes Trump is the underdog, fighting against a media, money, and celebrity-backed Democratic party.
Speaker 1 discusses AI, emphasizing the need for a truth-seeking AI to prevent a "woke mind virus" from programming AI to lie. He expresses concern about the power of AI and the potential for it to be controlled by untrustworthy individuals. He advocates for sensible deregulation and a review of existing regulations to promote progress and innovation. He also touches on the issues of over-prescription of psychiatric medication and the potential negative effects of hormonal birth control.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If he loses, man, what? You're fucked, dude.
Speaker 1: You're not fucked. If he loses, I'm fucked.
Speaker 0: It does seem that way. You can't just be like you can't just be like, yo, I Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm like, how how long do you think my prison sentence is gonna be tonight? Will I see my children? I don't know. Because it's not like
Speaker 0: you can say, well, yeah, I maxed out to him, but, you know, I get
Speaker 1: you're I'm no plausible deniability. No. No. And I've been trashing Kamala nonstop.
Speaker 0: Oh, I know.
Speaker 1: Well, not I mean, the Kamala puppet, I call him. You know? The the the machine that the Kamala puppet represents.
Speaker 0: Yeah. She's irrelevant. I mean, she's not even No.
Speaker 1: No. Like a like a I made a I made a joke, which I realized I deleted, which is, like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless. What do you achieve? No. It's totally fine.
Another puppet. Exact that's It's so important to kill It's
Speaker 0: deep and true, though.
Speaker 1: Nobody's tried to kill Joe Biden.
Speaker 0: It's imp They're
Speaker 1: pretty pointless. Totally. You actually put that up? Yeah. No.
Some people interpret it as as as as though I was calling for people to to Of course. Assassinate her. But I but I but I was like but I was like, no. We even you know, you know, I was I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered to
Speaker 0: try? It's not worth it. I mean, there's an endless supply.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm like, no nobody would it's it's absurd.
Speaker 0: It could be anybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. You you nobody's gonna try to nobody tries to assassinate a puppet.
Speaker 0: Of course not. A marionette.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Marionette. It's just like you know? It's hilarious. Yeah.
She's safe. Like, I don't I like, to to try and kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: He shot in the air right in fucking butt butler
Speaker 0: where I was. And, he doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you? Doesn't seem what?
Rattled.
Speaker 1: He's I mean, it's the constitution of an ox. It's it's you know, so it's not like working out and eating healthy. And he's Okay.
Speaker 0: We gotta tape this. Oh, yeah. We're Oh, yeah. We're good. Oh, good.
Yeah. Is this so so
Speaker 1: He's he's not like, let me eat another salad. That's not no. Or or work out, you know, you know, fastidiously. That's he he I I felt like, oh, he doesn't work out, and he eats, you know, cheeseburgers and Diet Coke and stuff. And because it
Speaker 0: it just I think he just inherently has a strong constitution. So when you I mean, yours with him, he didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of 2 assassination attempts?
Speaker 1: No. He seemed, of, you know, sound mind and body and, strong backbone.
Speaker 0: Did you,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I said in the in the thing, which Yeah. When and and the remarks I made there were impromptu. There's no teleprompter or anything. I just I was just speaking extemporaneously.
Speaker 0: Are you the only rich guy who doesn't have, like, a media consultant?
Speaker 1: No. I don't media consultant. Yeah. No. I've noticed, obviously.
Yeah. Oh, I mean no. I I just, no. I just thought about what what I what I wanna say, and I just spoke off the cuff, don't tell it prompted. Nothing.
Speaker 0: Good for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I can talk I just look like I'm like, right now, I'm just talking. Look
Speaker 0: at me. Wow. Amazing.
Speaker 1: Can you believe it? I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy. But if
Speaker 0: if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him.
Speaker 1: All in. All in. In the deep end? Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. You are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom.
Speaker 1: No. No. I'm like I'm like rolling around. I'm like picking my I'm like, baa. It's all in, baby.
Speaker 0: Is it fun?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's really fun. I mean, there may be some in the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance, on me. Were you kidding? I mean, it's possible.
Speaker 0: It's possible?
Speaker 1: You've got
Speaker 0: to be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's not like, you know, we do useful essential work Right. That we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better and costs less. That that's why we get covered contracts right now. And and and and, I mean, if you take, for example, the, the NASA contract to transport astronauts to and from the space station, Boeing got NASA awarded 2 contracts at the start, one to Boeing and one to SpaceX.
Boeing was awarded twice as much as SpaceX. SpaceX has done all the astronaut transport, from the space station, and and Boeing has only done one to one transport of 1 of 2 astronauts to the space station, and we had to bring them back. Boeing got twice as much as SpaceX. There's there's this total misunderstanding that that my companies have been subsidized and supported by the government and get all these and and it's like, do you do you really think that a Biden administration is gonna subsidize me? You're probably not.
Are you kidding? No. In fact, they take away every contract they possibly can. So, for example, there was the FCC contract to, $42,000,000,000 for providing rural broadband. Yes.
Okay. We we actually first said, look, we don't we think there shouldn't be any subsidies, so we recommend that this program just not exist. But since you're insisting that it exists, we will compete. And we we have better products. So we we we won, I don't know, about a quarter of it, which would have included the devastated areas like North Carolina and so on.
And, the FCC took it away illegally. They just voted 3 out of 5 commissioners voted away and said, even though you want it, we're we're we're we're sending it. On what ground?
Speaker 0: And do
Speaker 1: you know how many people they have connected? How many? 0.
Speaker 0: So you think that was political? Well, the 3 Democrats voted against it. Right.
Speaker 1: The 2 Republicans voted for it.
Speaker 0: So you tried to get StarLink you tried to get StarLink Yes. Into North Carolina, into Western North Carolina, the areas devastated by the hurricane.
Speaker 1: We have it is it is in there, and it is the primary means of communication in the devastated areas.
Speaker 0: You had conflict with Buttigieg over this. Well, I I I raised a cons
Speaker 1: I I said, look, we're we we had delivered we've been delivering Starlink terminals there for a while, and obviously, some people already had them, since they just, you know, consume private individuals that had Starlink there already. We delivered, thousands of terminals, and and got all the way up to the, you know, the areas where they wouldn't let us go any further. And then we're, like, okay, we're gonna send helicopters in, and and and find people who are stranded and and give them Starlink terminals, which I think is, you know, a nice thing. Yeah! Okay.
The they they wouldn't let us land, because there was an FAA, notice to M and NOTAM that said, in order to land, you have to know who you're going to meet with, to land. Now, the problem is, we're trying to deliver Internet communications. People don't have Internet communications. We don't know who they are, but then they can't reach us because they don't have communications. Do you see the catch-twenty 3?
Speaker 0: Yes, I do.
Speaker 1: Insane. So so it's obviously impossible for people who don't have Internet communications to let us know who they are, because they don't have the Internet. Yes. Yes. And so,
Speaker 0: Did you explain this to the federal government?
Speaker 1: Yes. What did they say? They they they they fixed it. How was Buttigieg when you talked to him? He was actually good.
So I wanna be just Yeah. Yeah. I I wanna give Buttigieg some credit here. Yes. 1st, a a you know, when I complained about it, he he he reacted in a in a in a very level headed way, and he reached out to me, and he called me.
Yeah. And we we discussed the issue, got to the bottom of it, and he fixed it. Good. So credit to the way
Speaker 0: to judge. Yeah. Well, and to you
Speaker 1: for pushing it. Yeah. I mean so but as soon as he was aware
Speaker 0: of the problem, he fixed it. Well, you publicized
Speaker 1: it too on Yeah. Yeah. As soon as you shamed him. Well, but I I do wanna give credit words too.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. Amen. I agree completely. So but back to the original question, you know, about the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work.
Yeah. I mean, you had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking?
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. So my view is is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're gonna have. That, the Democrats the Dem Machine, has been, importing so many peep bringing in so many illegals, flying flying in with this, like, CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by the DOJ to actually to stop it from happening.
They're, transporting large numbers of of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website. So, like, from the democrat administered government websites. Like, where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats.
And, there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states, and in some cases, it's like 700% over the last 3 years. Now, these swing state margins are, you know, sometimes 10, 20000 votes. So what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state? And and and for this for this if when somebody is granted asylum, they are fast tracked they would they they they get get a green card, and then 5 years after the green card, they can get they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
And sometimes they get this rebuttal of, like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align with, sort of, the far left sort of work ideology. I said, that's true, but, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States, and the the the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote down. That's what happens.
So my prediction is if there's another 4 years of a Dem administration, they will legalize so many, illegals that are there, that the next election, there won't be any swing states. And it's and we'll be a single party country, just like California is a single party state. It's a super majority damn state
Speaker 0: in California. Because of immigration?
Speaker 1: Yes. The California was, fairly reliably Republican.
Speaker 0: Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia.
Speaker 1: Yes. So there was a 90 986 amnesty.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And thereafter, California trended very strongly, Dem, and as at this point, I think 65, 70 percent Dems, something like that. It's super majority Dems. But, like, the California legislature Yes. Is more than 2 thirds Democrat.
Speaker 0: Has it improved the state?
Speaker 1: No. It's it's not. And they they California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even this is even real. But California just passed a law making it illegal, to require voter ID in any election at all in California.
Do you you know that? No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week.
Speaker 0: It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council.
Speaker 1: And and a friend of mine who is this can who lives in Palo Alto was like it it was like, is this actually real? And he went to, like, vote in, like, some city council election. He tried to show them his ID, and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your ID.
Speaker 0: Have they extended the same
Speaker 1: actually what's going on right now.
Speaker 0: But By the
Speaker 1: way, they're proud of it. They're not hiding it.
Speaker 0: But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor or buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's illegal.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're gonna ID you 6 ways a Sunday. It's yeah. They tried California is trying to make it basically equal to own its own a gun. And and the same people that demanded vaccine IDs IDs for if you wanna travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required.
Speaker 0: Is there any reason Obviously hypocritical. To pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud?
Speaker 1: It's it's for it's it's it's so that fraud can never cannot be proven. So it it it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it, because how would you prove it? It's literally impossible. No no ID. You you're not even allowed to show your ID.
It's insane. Well, it is insane. Insane. So yeah. The the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections.
Speaker 0: Obviously. There can be no other explanation.
Speaker 1: I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing.
Speaker 0: People don't have IDs? Could you live in this country without an ID?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the the the their common rebuttal is, like, it's racist to require ID and which is insane. I think it's actually race racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously.
Speaker 0: But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think it's even possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You can't do anything.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You need ID for everything. Like, a list of the things you need ID for is basically everything, except voting.
Speaker 0: So So you see the rest of the It's
Speaker 1: total bullshit, obviously. Come obviously. Yes.
Speaker 0: But that doesn't, in any way, minimize the aggression or self righteousness they bring to this conversation.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: It's you're a racist if you want that. Right.
Speaker 1: Where was that in fact, obviously, someone is racist if they say that, people of particular race cannot get ID. That's patronizing and racist. That's absurd.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's like when the governor of New York said people in the you know, get out don't know how to use computers or something like that. I mean, like, you know, I'm super out of
Speaker 0: touch. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. So It's like a So there's a really clear template.
Speaker 1: She doesn't know how to use computers, but they do, obviously.
Speaker 0: I don't think Hochul could use a computer. Yeah. I don't think she's She's not qualified intellectually.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. Probably not.
Speaker 0: But not everyone in New York is as dumb as as Kathy Hochul. I think that's true. Yeah. So you see the other 49 states becoming California if the machine wins?
Speaker 1: Well, you don't need, all all 49 to to go that way. You just need, you know, enough to have the election have there not be swing states. I mean, there are only 6 swing swing states. Yep. So there are only 6 states out of 50 right now that are in contention.
So if those 6 states that are in contention, by narrow margins are no longer in contention, then, the the only contest will be for who wins the Democratic prime primary. That's how it is in California, that's how it is in New York. There's no there's no party, party versus party situation. The only contest is who wins the Democratic primary. And as we've seen with the, appointment of Kamala, who no one voted for, even in the Democratic primary Yes.
Speaker 0: Where's the democracy here? It's just it's easier, though.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's just that the Democrat elite just decides who who who is in charge. That's an that that that that's that's a, you know, a tiny oligarchy, basically. Comprised of That's not democracy.
Speaker 0: The richest people in the country. That's kind of the interesting part to me is that the richest people in the country are on board with this. I mean, that's what it is. It's the it's it's a collection of billionaires.
Speaker 1: Most of them are. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But you're not.
Speaker 1: Not me. And and not everyone is. I think there's but but it is a shocking number of so called billionaires are, in the damn camp. Well, more than are in the Republican camp Oh, for sure. Which is wild.
So the in in fact, the the astonishing thing in the swing states is that that it's that they're even a contest given that, the the Dems have far more money than the Republicans. So so the color came dramatically outspends the Trump campaign in the swing states. The, overwhelming the media is overwhelmingly pro Democrat, so you've got, you know, the press, you know, is a is a a Dem cheering squad. And, you know, so oh, and then and then you've got all all the almost all the Hollywood and entertainment celebrities also, you know, endorsing, comment, and and being pro Dems. What do you So you got the so you got the celebrities, you got the they got the money, they got, got it basically, everything on the side of the Dems.
The problem is the underdog here. Trump's the underdog in swing swing states, and still, it's a contentious it's still 5050. After all that,
Speaker 0: what does that tell you?
Speaker 1: It tells me that if if people actually knew what was going on, they weren't being fed nonstop propaganda, it would landslide in favor of Republicans.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, how's this for crazy? Has there ever been a more volatile time in American politics? Not in our lifetimes. No one alive has ever seen anything like this.
But long before things started to really fall apart, the Heritage Foundation saw it coming. Heritage has pulled together a coalition of over a 100 right leaning groups to develop a comprehensive plan for day 1. That would include detailed policy proposals on the most pressing issues, the big ones. Securing the border, controlling inflation, cracking down on election fraud, protecting the rights of the individual, and saving the nation from being crushed by woke anti human ideology. The team at Heritage has also developed a plan to dismantle the deep state that keeps this nonsense going and reclaim this nation from the small group of technocrats that's broken everything.
Heritage is also running a training and vetting program to identify effective conservatives to serve in the next presidential administration. People who will share your values, this country's values, and actually do the job. It can't just be the same pool of discredited people from Washington populating every administration. Headers has a long head start and they put in a lot of work already But they need your support to finish the job and to support the incoming president You can go to heritage.org/tucker and contribute to this important work today a lot depends on it heritage.org/tucker. But why not join the easier side?
I mean, you're just you're creating problems for yourself by getting on stage with Trump and into I mean, you must have had friends who said that to you. Sure.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. People care about you. Like, why even get involved in this?
Speaker 1: Well, I get because I I think we wanna remain a democracy, and we don't wanna become a one party state.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That's the reason. And the it's exact opposite. They the people who call Trump a threat to democracy, but the people who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy. Yes. One party rule is not democracy.
One party where essentially the party elite pick a candidate, as happened with Kamala, is not democracy. Where did the people vote? Show me where the people voted. No, there were no people voting. It was all just damn party elite that disappointed someone.
And and when the when the Biden puppet, when the pro Biden puppet's ratings sagged, they knocked him in the back immediately, and just tossed him out, and put it put a new puppet on. That's exactly what happened. Tell me I'm wrong.
Speaker 0: Well, not only you're right. I mean, it's almost not even worth criticizing Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: because No. No. Exactly.
Speaker 0: What does she have to do with it?
Speaker 1: There's no point in in criticizing Kamala. She's she's simply the the face of a lot a much larger machine. Yes. And she will say whatever is whatever the tele the tele teleprompter whatever's on the teleprompter, she's gonna say it. Yes.
Now she gets stuck if the teleprompter breaks. That happened recently. I think the Yeah. The teleprompter is stalled, and she just she just, like, looping for a while for about a minute. So I think that happened yesterday or something.
It was pretty funny to watch. But she'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter, so, you know, it's it's really whoever controls the teleprompter. It's the actual sort of those are the best who's actually in charge.
Speaker 0: And who is that, do you think? Well, I've I've tried to
Speaker 1: put it down. It's it's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it it seems to be it's it's, like, Kamala is sort of a a marionette with, you know, a a 1000 puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's it's it's or maybe it's it's in it's somewhere north of a 100 is what it seems
Speaker 0: like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them.
Speaker 1: I probably know most of them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, you Yeah. And I should say I think you voted for that.
Speaker 1: I'd I'd I'd like to see a matchup of of of those quote that the the top 100 puppet masters in the FDN client list.
Speaker 0: Do you think there's some overlap?
Speaker 1: Overlap.
Speaker 0: Strong overlap. When are we gonna see that list, do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's it's it's it's mind blowing that that it, that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on on the Epstein client list, they have not even tried to prosecute even 1. Is that that's insane.
Speaker 0: Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They've they're kinda occupied.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the on the Epstein client list.
Speaker 0: Will that ever come out, do you think?
Speaker 1: Know, I I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that, if if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of
Speaker 0: that outcome. Yeah. Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And I only ask that because you can certainly just look at them and you're like, that that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Reid Hoffman was my vice president of business development at PayPal. Yeah. 24 years ago.
Speaker 0: He Did does he seem nervous to you? Yeah. I mean, he's terrified of the Trump victory. Because of the disclosure that would follow?
Speaker 1: I think yeah. I mean, I think he's he's certainly ideologically in line with Trump anyway, but I think he is concerned about the, the the the Epstein situation. Like, something might actually the DOJ might actually move forward. There are
Speaker 0: a lot of videos apparently. Those rooms on the island and I think out in New Mexico were wired for video. Right. And Where's
Speaker 1: the video? I mean, between Denny and Epstein, it's got this this was probably several 1,000 hours of footage here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of weird that the people on those videos are lecturing the rest of us about our moral failings, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's weird. What is that? Well, I mean, part of how they deflect attention from themselves is by a march you know, criticizing the morals of others. Yes.
So they it's sort of like a preemptive moral strike. Yes. I mean, as I said, I think those who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves actually the threat to democracy.
Speaker 0: It feels like we're getting to a place where the rest of us know too much. Is this do you know what I mean? I mean, it's it's it's easier to live in a society where you don't really know what the people in charge are doing or why they're doing it. But now, thanks, I would say, largely to x. Yeah.
I think that's fair to say that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: We we do know a lot. Not everything, but we know a lot. And I wonder where does that like, what happens next now that we know all this? The kidnapper shown us his face. Like, what happens?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if, if Trump wins, we can do some housecleaning and shed light on things. Yeah. All all the x platform does is, adhere to freedoms freedom of speech within the balance of the law.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And if if people want to change laws, they they can change laws. And so, like, x in different countries, the we x does censor in in in countries where censorship is is is the law. We don't try to, you know, push American laws in other countries, but we do try to stick to the law in any given country. That's what we're doing. We open source our algorithm.
We try to be as transparent as possible. But, those who want to push lies obviously hate truth and transparency. Yes. Because it shows them to be liars. I mean, you you look at that, like, how outrageous it was that, Kamala in the presidential debate kept kept pushing the fine people hoax.
They know the fine people hoax is is false. Trump would never support, Nazis, Nazi rallies. It's absurd. And and he explicitly said that, you know, in that same speech, that you must condemn not you know, anyone who, who has Nazi tendencies with the, in the strongest possible terms. And yet, despite knowing that to be false, the people who who who wrote the speech for the Kamala puppet, put the fine people hoax in a presidential debate, Deliberately lying.
Again. Mess up.
Speaker 0: If she wins, I mean I how can they let X continue, in its current form, in its current role in American society?
Speaker 1: They they won't. They will, try to shut it down by any means possible. What do you mean by any means possible? I mean, either by I mean, they'll try to pass laws. They'll try to prosecute the company, prosecute me.
Any I mean, the amount of lawfare that we've seen taking places is outrageous. I mean, the I mean, I have many examples, but, like, the Department of Justice, for example, launched a huge lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers. Come on.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Asylum seekers?
Speaker 1: Asylums not asylum those who granted asylum asylum seekers. Now there's now there's also a law, called International Traffic and Arms Regulations, that because SpaceX develops advanced missile technology that can be used in in nuclear ICBMs, that we have we have to be very careful with who we hire. We can only hire someone if they're a permanent resident or citizen. That's what the ITAR law says. Then there's another law that says that, you cannot discriminate against asylum seekers.
So we're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The DOJ did a massive lawsuit against SpaceX, for failing to hire asylum seekers, even though we are it is illegal for us to hire asylum seekers under ITAR law. This is an actual thing that that that's that's going on. And they can only they can only do a fairly small number of lawsuits every year. So why did they pick this one?
Because you have an x. Yeah. Yeah. Lawfare. I mean It's like that famous quote from Beria, you know, the Yeah.
Stalin's, like, chief torturer and head of the secret police. Beria said, show me the man, and I'll show you the crime. Exactly. I mean, we have so many laws that it is actually impossible to, you know, impossible to to do business, but impossible to operate without being, violating some law, because you have laws like the ones I just gave you, where where both things are illegal. Yes.
They contradict one another. They contradict one another. So, you know, it's it's illegal to discriminate against like, discriminate against asylum seekers in in jobs, but it's also illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. But it's just They just chose one they chose the the the the one law and ignored the other one. And the Department of Dutch Justice at federal level prosecuted SpaceX for that.
Speaker 0: What do you think It's mad. Well, it also discredits the idea of law, which some of us wants to take seriously.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. It it it this affects both the perception of of American justice and the reality of
Speaker 0: it. Yes.
Speaker 1: So now I'm actually a big fan of the American justice system, and I think on balance, you know, we've we've got still still have an excellent judicial system. We still have judges that care about the letter, and intent of the law. I mean, not just the letter, but also the intent of the law. But something that people should be concerned about is that there's an increasing movement to place activists as judges. This is, if you look at who who did the Biden administration confirm as federal judges, and who are being confirmed at at the state level, in in in sort of follow-up states, increasingly it is it is not, judges who care about justice, or or they they don't care about following the law.
They care about social justice, not justice justice. Right? What they call social social justice. Activists as judges. Now you got a real problem.
Do you think if If that continues, we we we will not have a real justice system. Or a real country. Yes. I mean, yeah.
Speaker 0: But again, your purchase of x has been I think it's fair to say even if I hated it, I would say this because it's true. It's been pivotal in American politics
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: In an American society. Do you think they could shut you down if the Democrats continue to hold power?
Speaker 1: They'll unequivocally try. Yeah. Yeah. And and if if if they if they, if they get a majority in the Senate and House, and the presidency, then they can simply pass a law, and delete section 230. So it's gonna make us liable for for what any what anyone says on a platform with, you know, good like, at this point, almost 600,000,000 monthly active users.
Yeah. Which is impossible. You know, that's that's like trying to regulate speech in city of like, as a country. So A big country. Yeah.
It'd just be instantly bankrupt.
Speaker 0: But I bet they wouldn't withdraw legal immunity from the vaccine makers at the same time, would they?
Speaker 1: No. That's unlikely.
Speaker 0: Just I mean, as long as we're withdrawing legal liability protection.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the whole vaccine debate is a is a is a long one. You know, I'm I'm not actually I'm not anti vaccine in general. I think we wanna exercise caution with use of vaccines, but, in the absence of vaccines, there'll be a lot more, I think, people that that, that have died.
You know? Like, we want the smallpox vaccine. That was a
Speaker 0: good one. It seems a good one.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Smallpox will kill you. Killed a lot of people.
It killed a lot of people. I I used to be people who would like a lot of people would die of smallpox, and a lot of people would get polio. For sure. Yeah. We had a president who had polio.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. There's still peep you meet people today Yeah. In their eighties who were limping from childhood polio.
Speaker 1: Right. It's good that we don't have that, and vaccines, you know, played a major role in that. So that doesn't mean that vaccines should not have any scrutiny. Of course, they should we should be making sure that the quality control of vaccines is incredibly good, I guess, if we're giving them to children and whatnot. And we shouldn't we shouldn't force people to take vaccines.
Speaker 0: That itself is a controversial statement that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force people
Speaker 1: to take vaccines. No? Yeah.
Speaker 0: So just to yes.
Speaker 1: I believe in freedom. Like, you
Speaker 0: know Yeah. I've noticed.
Speaker 1: I'd like, the the you know, America is supposed to be the land of liberty.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, freedom freedom and opportunity. So that, we we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty, and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on, your talent and hard work. Yes. Those are 2 fundamental values. That that's what that's that's what's made America great, and and if we lose those, we will our decline will be swept.
Speaker 0: What what do you if you had to get if you had to bet, I mean, does freedom reassert itself in America or not?
Speaker 1: Well, that's why I think part of why this election is so pivotal. I think if we with the Trump administration, I think we can improve the liberty of Americans. We we can, I think we need to have sensible deregulation, where we we we keep the regulations that matter, like, we we don't want to destroy, you know, important habitats or Yes? You know, encourage oil spills or anything like that. But there there are so many regulatory agencies that have overlapping responsibility, that we are smothering progress.
And we can't build a high speed rail in America. You know, look at the ridiculous high speed rail project in California, where they've spent $7,000,000,000, and all they've got to show for it is a 6 a 1600 foot section of concrete with no rails on it. There's a picture of it online. So it's not
Speaker 0: it's not that fast yet. We wouldn't say it's high speed at this point or even rail.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even have rail on it. And may maybe by now, they've put some rail on it, but it's this comically small section of rail. $7,000,000,000 has been spent, most of it in like environmental consulting, and I don't know where, but clearly not in building high speed rail. So we can't we can't we've got there are so many different regulatory agencies and so many laws and regulations that prevent progress that if those continues, we simply won't be able to get anything done.
Speaker 0: It does seem like the engineers are not getting rich. It's the environmental consultants, the climate consultants, the DEI consultants. A whole consultant class seems to be getting richer by the year, where people with actual skills, the ones that bring actual progress
Speaker 1: Useful things. Products and services that use Useful things. That's right. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So this is a tricky things
Speaker 1: that if you were, like, traveling on a desert island, you'd want those people
Speaker 0: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: But you wouldn't want environmental consultants.
Speaker 0: They seem under they seem under
Speaker 1: confident. Star. Okay?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, It's
Speaker 1: like, who who who's who are actual builders at at Get Things Done? And, you know, and and and every year, we're making it harder in America for actual builders to get things done. You know, we're in this, like, weird Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged Yeah. Scenario, where it's you know, there's yet another regulation, yet another rule. And and what there's a sort of that that phrase in in Atlas Shrugged.
Oh, you'll oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage. It's like, eventually, you're like, can't get anything done.
Speaker 0: Why the hostility, though, toward people with with meaningful skills? It's it's not it's not a neutral posture they have. Yeah. And they're enriching themselves, obviously, by creating fake jobs because they have no skills and, you know, they don't have creative power. So I understand that, but why do they hate people who do have creative power and actual skills?
I I don't understand that.
Speaker 1: I don't I'm not sure I understand it either because it's difficult for me to put my put myself in a mindset because I'm I'm someone who believes in construction. I I build things, that's what I do. Yeah. I build cars, I build rockets, I build Internet, you know, satellite Internet. You know, I've spent, 1,000 of
Speaker 0: hours tens of thousands of hours in in
Speaker 1: in factories, building up factories. So, you know, I I also I I can't really put myself in the mind of, say, someone who would wanna do crime because I don't wanna do crime.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You
Speaker 1: know, I don't wanna hurt, you know, there's there's some people who who enjoy hurting other people. I don't enjoy hurt hurting other people. So I'm like, I have a hard time imagining why would somebody do that. Yes. You know, in an extreme case, you you can't put yourself in the mind of, like, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, where where you're like a cannibalistic serial killer, because you're not a cannibalistic serial killer.
Right. You're like, I can't I don't get it. You know?
Speaker 0: It's not a fetish you can relate to.
Speaker 1: It's not. You know? But I do think this is in in the sort of well meaning sort of liberal mindset, I know, I've I've many good friends who, you'd they're very they have deep empathy for their fellow human being. Good. And they they they care.
And and and but the challenge that they have is that they've often grown up in a very sheltered existence, where everyone around them is nice and civilized. And they just really don't encounter people who are, have have uncontrolled violent tendencies, or or like hurting people. You know, they've just always grown up in a sort of kumbaya Yeah. Everyone is nice,
Speaker 0: hippie commune situation. Minneapolis pre riots. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, if you if you if you yeah. But but there's there's a small number of people. It's like a few percent of society that, either can't have anger management issues that are so severe that they they they lose their temper and hurt or murder others, and there's a a small it's like a it's not not a large number, that that enjoy hurting other people. And if you do not incarcerate them, they will they will do that.
They will they will hurt other people. And what I see is is what I call, shallow empathy. Like, people have empathy for the criminals, but not empathy for the victims of the criminals. Yes. And so if you simply have and I believe that one should have deep empathy to say, like, what is the greater good for society?
Is it better to incarcerate violent criminals and prevent them from hurting people, or to let them loose and allow those people to be hurt? And I think the latter is much worse. You know, my mom is my mom lives in New York, and and it's my mom at this at this point is has gone from being Democrat to Republican, and her her friends in New York, are should for having the same experience. Because you know what'll turn you from a Democrat to a Republican pretty fast? Is getting punched in the face while you walk down the street.
Speaker 0: Yes. For no reason.
Speaker 1: Yes. And then and then and then no action being taken against those who hurt you. And that happened to your mom? Not not to my mother, but to 3 of her friends this year.
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. I am not in the studio. I'm in the and you can hear it in the audio probably. I'm in the back of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
I think it's Tulsa, Oklahoma. Anyway, we're on the road for this month long tour, and there's a lot going on in the world. And the question is, how do you understand what's happening? There are deeper trends unfolding. You probably sense that, and it would be helpful to have some grounding in exactly what they are.
And if you're like me and you spend 4 years in college and didn't learn all that much, where do you go to understand what's happening to your world? Well, Hillsdale College, in our opinion, is one of the very few places left in the English speaking world where your kids can get a real education. But not just your kids, you. They have free online classes completely free. You can get them anywhere, including in the back seat of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
And you'll know that when you go there. Go to tucker for hillsdale.com. They have an amazing new course called Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. Hillsdale is offering it. It doesn't cost you a dime, and you could pull it up right on your phone if you want.
Go to tucker for hillsdale.com and the class, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, and you'll have a much better understanding of what you're watching every day. Why would someone punch them in the face?
Speaker 1: I don't know. But that's I don't I'm not a face puncher.
Speaker 0: Right. No.
Speaker 1: You know? But if you walk around the streets of San Francisco and and many downtowns, so they go downtown Philadelphia right now, you know, they they call the people homeless, but but the the homeless is the wrong term. Violent drug zombie. Yeah. Okay.
It's like you know, you look at them, you say, like, homeless is a misnomer. It implies that someone got a little behind on their mortgage. And if you just offered them a job, they'd be back on their feet. Yeah. No.
No. But if if you're going to look at downtown Philly or San Francisco or parts of New York and actually, most downtowns, what you actually have are violent drug zombies. So they're like shuffling down the street with dead eyes, you know, and with, like, needles, you know, on the and human feces on the streets. You've been to South House SF, right? Have you seen this?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. I was born there. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Like, one of the most beautiful cities in
Speaker 0: the world. Oh, yes. The greatest.
Speaker 1: And now you have to step over the drug needles and the feces and the bodies. Like, one one couple I met, the final straw for leaving San Francisco was there was a they came home, one night, and there's a dead body in front of their garage. They can can get their car in to to can can can can park their car.
Speaker 0: Because of
Speaker 1: the corpse. And, yeah, there's no street fog. They're like, this is a corpse. This is a corpse in front of the garage. And they don't wanna move the corpse, you know, because, like, well, you know, there you don't you're like, maybe there's they need to, like, figure out why the guy died or something.
You know?
Speaker 0: That's to me. That's liberal compassion, though.
Speaker 1: They're in a bit of a quandary because they get they get in a place to park their car, and they they feel that they shouldn't really move the dead body. So they called 911 and said, there's a dead body outside our house. And, they said, well, they said they said that 911 San Francisco says, well, are you in danger right now? It's like, well, no. He's dead.
He's pretty sure he's dead. And, they're like they're like, okay. We'll we'll send someone tomorrow to pick up the body. Like, they're like, what do you mean tomorrow? So so so they're, like, going out of their house while there's a dead body, as in front right in front of their house, you know, like it took like, it took, like, 24 hours or something like that to eventually pick up the body.
And they're like, this the hell with us were leaving.
Speaker 0: And did they?
Speaker 1: Yes. By the way, there's a million anecdotes like that. Oh, I know.
Speaker 0: No. But I just don't think This
Speaker 1: is not rare.
Speaker 0: It's well, it's it's it's ubiquitous. And so then you wonder, like, how can people still tell themselves they're compassionate
Speaker 1: if they're loving it? Is is that is that people really just need
Speaker 0: to think
Speaker 1: what like, I believe in being compassionate about Of course. I believe that we should care about our fellow human beings. I think this is a good thing.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: We should not we should not be we should not be selfish and not care about others. We should care about others. But we should just care about others, all things considered. Like I said, care not merely just about the criminals. It's just one layer deep.
You should also care about the criminals' victims.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Well, especially the criminal's victims.
Speaker 1: Yes. Innocent people who get attacked and killed. So, I mean, I got so many anecdotes. I mean, you know, like, about a year ago, there were there were 3, actual Twitter employees who were just, leaving the building and walking down Mock Street in in San Francisco. Mock Street used to be a beautiful, wonderful street.
Of course. Obviously, it's called Mock Street because that's where the market was. Right. Now now it's boarded up shop windows and stuff, and, and, they were chased by a guy with an ax who wanted they they they they outran him, and they reported, hey, there's a guy with an axe who who tried to hit try to kill us with an axe. The police did nothing, and, that guy with an ax, subsequently murdered 2 people.
With an ax? With the yeah. With the ax. Because eventually, he's gonna find somebody he cannot run, and he did. So what I'm saying is if you if you don't stop ax motors while it while they're attempting to ax motor, eventually, they will succeed in ax motoring people.
Speaker 0: If this goes on, I mean, that's such an obvious observation.
Speaker 1: Seems obvious.
Speaker 0: Yes. I I think it is. Yeah. That if you're in any way abetting axe murder, then you're really you're against civilization. That's the way it looks to me.
I mean Yeah. I don't see I'm trying to understand motive here. I can't relate like you, but you're against the whole project if you're allowing that. I guess, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think we should, controversial position, but I think we should arrest axe murderers when they first attempted to axe murder, not after they've succeeded in doing so.
Speaker 0: And I think we should assign at least some of the blame for the axe murderers to the people who allowed allowed this guy to run around with an axe on Market Street trying to kill people. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know this this whole movement to decriminalize crime.
Speaker 0: Oh, I've noticed. Yes. What is that?
Speaker 1: Madness? Yeah. Like, do do do you to to a crime crime legal? Like, in California, you can just steal things, and nobody does anything? It's, like, fully legal to steal anything under $1,000 in California?
That's why got they don't have to, like, lock up goods behind these, like, you know, glass and plastic walls. So you go into the supermarket, and you you can't even get, like, what, toothpaste. So that's and and this has actually been particularly difficult on small mom and pop operations. Of course. They don't have the resources of a large corporation.
So it's put a lot of small businesses out
Speaker 0: of just kill them. So when you're at dinner parties and you make these points, what do people say?
Speaker 1: Well, I actually think I've been I've been able to persuade people that, yeah, we we really, we we we need to reverse course here. I think I have actually been able to to persuade a number of people. And I think there actually is a now a ballot on a California ballot initiative to recriminalize, theft. You know what? Guys guys, we there's a reason why we criminalize theft in the first place.
So so and then amazingly, I think Gavin Newsom was a came out against that, proposition. Yeah. No. Honestly, he's the goddamn joker. Gavin Newsom is like if is like like from the like Batman, Dark Knight, the Joker is in charge of Gotham.
You remember, like,
Speaker 0: when he
Speaker 1: took over New York, basically? And and and the criminals run free and the citizens are arrested. That's how that's California. But but, I mean, at least there's a ballot initiative, which I think will probably pass, to say, no. You actually, it is a crime to steal things.
Speaker 0: So you know Gavin. You've gotta know Gavin Newsomie knows. I know Gavin Newsomie. You know, everyone knows Gavin.
Speaker 1: I've known Gavin for a long time.
Speaker 0: Oh, exactly. So what is that? And he doesn't seem crazy when you talk to him in person. He's a perfectly nice guy. Like, what why would he and he's not stupid.
Why would he come out in favor of crime?
Speaker 1: Well, his stated reason was that it would disproportionately affect, people of color.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, again But that was his public statement. Right. Well, that is one of those patronizing racist positions you described at the outset, obviously.
Speaker 1: Yes. He I mean, he's literally saying, black people are, and Hispanics are criminals. Yeah. Of course. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: That's what he's saying.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And by
Speaker 0: the way, it is true that crime like that does increase distrust between races. It actually gives rise to racism. It's totally destructive of the social fabric, I think. But I'm but I'm asking like, what do you think his real motive is? Like, who's pushing him in favor of crime?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, there's always the Saros boogie man. Yeah. Or who you know?
Speaker 0: How real is that?
Speaker 1: It's it's real. I I don't think one can ascribe everything to Saros. I mean, he's, and and George George himself is, is quite I mean, he's seen out at this point. He's not Yes. Not compass measures.
So his his son, Alex, is is in charge. And, but but there is this whole system that SARS built up over many decades. You know? And, so so so I guess SARS and like minded people or whatever, you know, they believe in open borders. They they believe we shouldn't prosecute crime.
This is insane.
Speaker 0: The those seem like expressions of hatred toward the United States. Like, I don't if I was pushing that on a country, I would only do that if I hated the country and wanted to destroy it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's anti civilizational. I mean, and and and similar organizations have been pushing this in in Europe and other countries too. Yeah. Anyone who everywhere they can.
Speaker 0: What's going on in Europe, would you say? Europe suddenly seems like a different place.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, my biggest concern for Europe is that the both rate is half replacement rate.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So Europe is rapidly becoming, with each passing year, older and older with fewer and fewer young people. So I think at the at the most fundamental level, unless Europe has birth rate at least roughly equal to replacement rate, it is, in population free fall. Population collapse is what's going on in Europe. So, there's also, like, a shocking amount of censorship. You may have seen, like, in, you know, Britain, they're I kid you not.
It's how can this be real? They are releasing convicted pedophiles from prison in order to put people in prison who for Facebook posts.
Speaker 0: But to be fair, those are posts that criticize the government, so they have a good reason.
Speaker 1: Well, they were actually some of these posts that I've these ones I've seen didn't actually criticize the government, or or or they they they they were they were seen as as sort of as as hate speech.
Speaker 0: Right. So Because they noticed the society getting crappier and crappier with every year, and they said so.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, there there were and this is the sort of so we're stating a fact that there were migrant rape gangs in Yes. In England that were gangs that would run around and prey on young girls, gang rape them. And some people found that objectionable, which, will say, it should be objectionable. And, they're upset about that.
And so they complained about it online and were sent to prison. That sounds crazy.
Speaker 0: It is crazy, and that's like
Speaker 1: like, what?
Speaker 0: Well, it is so it kind of gets to the I mean, you're an engineer, so you're
Speaker 1: It's so mind
Speaker 0: boggling. It is mind boggling, but it's the same you use the phrase mind virus, but it it's behaving like a virus. It's infecting people and making it impossible, apparently, for them to make rational decisions. What is that virus?
Speaker 1: You know, someone I think you should interview is, God Saad.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I have.
Speaker 1: Oh, you have? Yes. Oh, I should watch that, actually. He's great.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Smart. Super smart guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And he he wrote a great book called, The Parasitic Mind.
Speaker 0: Yes. A
Speaker 1: very good book. Highly recommended. Yes. Which where he tries to understand how do you get to this parasitic mind situation. And he's writing a book now, which hopefully will publish soon, which is about suicidal empathy, where you have so much empathy, you're actually suiciding society.
Or so much perceived empathy. It's not actually it's called shallow empathy, not deep empathy. Deep empathy would be you'd want the society to continue. Shallow empathy is because you have, like, empathy that's essentially skin deep, and then you and and you don't but it's ultimately bad for civilization and results in the destruction of civilization. And Gut's Gut's Heart has got a good term for this, suicidal empathy.
So it's it's gonna sort of deconstruct what's what's you know, where does this come come from? And, yeah. I mean, part part of it, I suppose, is is is sort of the decline of religion. So, you know, as the saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum. So when you have, essentially a decline in religion, an increase in the secular nature of society, for most people, they need something to fill that void.
And so they adopt a religion. It's not called a religion, but like but effectively like woke, the woke mind virus. It takes the place of religion. Yes. And they internalize it, and they feel it with religious fervor.
Yes. So And rigidity. Yes. Yes. And they you know, they essentially conduct, like, a holy war, effectively.
It's just not called a religion, but it is a religion. That was sort of a work holy war. And they're highly resistant to change as is normal for for for religions. So, now for myself, I'm I'm I sort of see myself as a sort of, you know, engineer, physicist. For me, I'm culturally Christian.
I grew up Christian. I mean, I was Anglican, was baptized. You know? I was went to Sunday school. Yeah.
Actually, oddly enough, I was sent to Hebrew preschool and Anglican Sunday school at the same time. So it was Habanagila one day, Jesus Eloh the next, which is, you know, to if you're 5 years old, it's fine. There's not there's you know? So, but I'm I'm not Jewish. It's just that my my father's 2 partners in his engineering firm were were I think it was went went to the same Hebrew preschool, and and it was near our house, so I just got sent there.
And so but but but, you know, I I I I, you know, I I maybe this will make me even more amused, but I I I have trouble sort of believing all these stories, these religious stories, but also a lot of people do. And, I respect people who wanna have religious views. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their religious views. But, anyway, I'm just I I guess the the operating system I have is is is a sort of a physics engineering operating system where I'm I I I try to understand as much as possible possible about reality. You know, in in physics, you're you're not supposed to believe everything anything absolutely.
You're you're supposed to question things. That's how you discover new physics. You know, in engineering, that's how you discover if your machine will work or not work. Will the rocket get to orbit? Will you know.
Yeah. You know, if you if your rocket is designed with, you know, physics in mind, correctly, it will get to orbit. And if it is not, it will not get to orbit, no matter what you believe, sister base. You can believe, you know, whether, it yeah. You know, it's like like I I meet a lot of people speaking of LA.
I meet a lot of people in LA who believe witchcraft is real, and that you can do spells. And that spells and witchcraft magic is real. I'm like, can you magic us to the moon? And no one has yet been able to magic us to the moon. Like, spells can't be that good, okay, if you can't I wanna go to the moon.
Let's go. How about Mars? And,
Speaker 0: So we we got to the moon the first time.
Speaker 1: We definitely went to the moon. I was like yes. We went to the moon. We didn't go to the moon we went to the moon several times.
Speaker 0: Right. Alright. Yeah. I just wanna check your view on that.
Speaker 1: We 100% went to the moon. What? I mean, I I know in-depth the technical designs of the rockets, the spacecraft, everything. Yes. What went right, what went wrong.
And, it it it was a remarkable piece of technology, like, incredible piece of technology for to go to the moon in 69. Yeah. That that that was, like reaching into the future and pulling the future forward, dramatically. And and it was an important ideological battle with communism, because they couldn't put a person on the moon and capitalism could.
Speaker 0: We did an interview a couple of weeks ago with a woman called Casey Means. She's a Stanford educated surgeon and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. In the interview, she explained how the food that we eat produced by huge food companies, big food in conjunction with pharma, is destroying our health, making this a weak and sick country. The levels of chronic disease are beyond belief. What Casey Means, who we've not stopped thought thinking about ever since, is the co founder of a health care technology company called Levels.
And we are proud to announce today that we are partnering with Levels. And by proud, I mean sincerely proud. Levels is a really interesting company and a great product. It gives you insight into what's going on inside your body, your metabolic health. It helps you understand how the food that you're eating, the things that you're doing every single day are affecting your body in real time.
You put stuff in your mouth, speaking for myself anyway, and you don't think about it. You have no idea what you're putting in your mouth and you have no idea what it's doing to your body. But over time, you feel weak and tired and spacey and over an even longer period of time, you can get really sick. So, it's worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you. The levels app works with something called the continuous glucose monitor, CGM.
You can get one as part of the plan or you can bring your own. It doesn't matter. But the bottom line is big tech, big pharma, and big food combine together to form an incredibly malevolent force, pumping you full of garbage on healthy food with artificial sugars and hurting you and hurting the entire country. So with Levels, you'll be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you. You get access to real time personalized data, and that's a critical step to changing your behavior.
Those of us who like Oreos can tell you firsthand. This isn't talking to your doctor at an annual physical looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information on how your body is responding to different foods and activities, the things that give you stress, your sleep, etcetera, etcetera. It's easy to use. It gives you powerful personalized health data, and then you can make much better choices about how you feel.
And over time, it'll have a huge effect. Right now, you can get an additional 2 free months when you go to levels.link/tucker. That's levels dot link slash Tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with Levels and doctor Casey Means. Do you believe there's a power higher than people?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, I think there's there's a lot we don't know. We don't we don't know like like, why does reality exist? Why where did it come from?
Where are the aliens? What questions should we ask that we don't even know to ask?
Speaker 0: So When you say what are the aliens, what do
Speaker 1: you think? Where are the aliens? Like, why don't we see them? A lot of people think we see aliens, but I I've not seen any evidence of aliens. You know, we've got 6,000 satellites in orbit, and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spacecraft.
So
Speaker 0: But on this Earth, the US military has had to do a lot of maneuvering around objects they can't explain.
Speaker 1: Well, unidentified flying objects is one thing, but, I mean, there's always there's always a bunch of, classified programs that are underway, that of of new aircraft and new missiles and things. So that that are classified even within the military. So it's, you know, only, you know, the if you have the top secret compartmented clearance would you know about this new program. So then, you know, some pilot sees something fast moving fast and so say, yeah. I saw a UFO.
I'm like, yeah. That was actually a new weapons program, but we can tell you that. Should you But I I I if if you can guarantee that the split second I see any evidence of aliens, I will immediately post that on the x platform. And it'll probably be our number 1 post of all time.
Speaker 0: That'll be your biggest day Yes. For sure. I mean But but to the question of a power beyond people, beyond our consciousness, a creator, where are you on
Speaker 1: that? Well, we must have we must have come from somewhere. So I guess, you know, that there must be some creator or creative force or something that caused our exist existence to come into being. What is the nature of that creator? That I think is an unknown.
At least I I think it is it is this I I I I can't I don't know of a definitive answer to that. So
Speaker 0: But it sounds like you're open.
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm very open to, you know, I I I I'm I'm driven by curiosity. Yes. And I try to understand more about the nature of the universe. So my my my driving philosophy is, to understand the meaning of life or or really what questions to ask if the meaning of the life the meaning of life is is is not the right question.
Like, as, you know, Douglas Adams made the point in the Hitchhiker's Guide of the Galaxy that the, like, what is the meaning of life is probably not even the right question. So, you know, famously, the in in that book, the earth was actually a computer to figure out the question answer the question, what is the meaning of life? And then it came up with the answer 42, but then they're like, what does that mean? And it's like, oh, that's that's that's the answer, but the question is the really hard part, and you'll need a much bigger computer than earth to figure that one out. So so my philosophy is that we should try to expand the scope and scale of consciousness.
We should try to have more humans, more thinking, and, and perhaps there there's an argument even for machine consciousness.
Speaker 0: So let me just address those in order. So the first is you say we need more people and not commit civilizational suicide. It does seem like the US government, if you take 3 steps back, is pretty committed to making fewer Americans. Yeah. There's a lot of anti fertility propaganda.
A lot. Actually, that seems like their main sort of domestic social policy is convincing you not to have kids. What is that? I mean, that's certainly part of civilizational suicide.
Speaker 1: The the the environmental movement in the extreme is fundamentally misanthropic and anti human.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth. That if that earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here. And some people actually have say this explicitly. There's there's there's the Extinctionist Society that is literally they they the this guy who's the head of the Extinctionist Society was on the front page of the New York Times quoted as saying, there are 8,000,000,000 people in the world. It would be better if there were none.
So there's some people who actually say that explicitly, which is is isn't completely insane. He's advocating a holocaust world of humanity. To utter madness, he should be condemned for such a statement, but he wasn't, for some reason. Now most people on the sort of, environmental movement have that implicitly. They're not they don't realize that they have that as their organization, but that is their actions, take us towards extinction.
So, a lot of people believe that the Earth can't sustain this level of human population, which is utterly untrue. It may seem in a crowded city that there are a lot of people, but actually, if you look down on an airplane and you say, look down, am I over a person at any given point in time when you're in an airplane? The answer is 99.9% of the time. No. But if you flew from LA to New York and say your your job is to drop a ball on someone and and hit them, you would fail.
You have to drop a
Speaker 0: lot of balls. You have to
Speaker 1: drop a lot of balls. It'd be insane. So, all of the humans on earth can fit on one floor in the city of New York. Yeah. The cross sectional area of of of all humans of 8,000,000,000 humans is small.
So we we have this totally wrong idea that, the earth is over over overpopulated where in fact it is underpopulated.
Speaker 0: How I mean, have you ever heard a politician say anything like that? Are there how many
Speaker 1: pro There's there's maybe a few
Speaker 0: prohuman politicians out there?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, like, like Viktor Orban, Georgia Maloney Yes. Because we're starting to see pronatalist, politicians, and hopefully more as time goes by. I think there's a guy that just got elected in the Czech Republic who's also pronatalist. Now these have to translate into actual actions that change the birth rate or doesn't matter, and, so far I've not seen any country make a meaningful dent in the birth rate.
Speaker 0: What would you do if you were in charge of natalist policy?
Speaker 1: First of all, I changed the education, system so that people understand, that, you know, stop being taught that we're overpopulated. This is completely false. A lot of it comes from this insane, misanthropic book that Paul Ehrlich wrote,
Speaker 0: The Population Bomb. Like 60 years ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I hope he burns in hell, that guy. Seriously. Terrible human being. Total absolute mustn't throw.
And, and say just, look, the the earth can absolutely sustain this population. It could we could double or triple the population. There's a professor I was talking to at at Oxford, who who's his his math says we could 10 x the population, with without destroying the Amazon rainforest or anything terrible. So, so I think we should expand the human population and increase the scope and scale of consciousness so we can better understand, the nature of this universe, this wonderful universe, and and all the amazing things that exist. And and and so that's one of the things I'd like we need to stop teaching people false propaganda that the Earth is overpopulated.
I I think we need to, you know, especially with the education of women and manna, is when you stop scaring women that having a kid destroys your life, this is false. You know, we we terrify girls into saying that if you get pregnant, your life's over. This is this is what schools teach. And I agree we should not have teenage pregnancies. Yeah.
But but but, but actually having a child is one of the most delightful, happiness inducing things you possibly do. Of course. Of course. So there's, there's also, you know, with, hormonal birth control, I think, maybe a lot of women are unaware that hormonal birth control causes depression, and dramatically increases risk of suicide, and changes, their preferences on who they wanna marry or have kids with. It it it changes their personality.
And I just say this on the box, by the way. But then
Speaker 0: Caution may change your personality.
Speaker 1: Yes. If the warnings are, has significant cause significant risk of depression, significant increase in suicide, and will make you wanna go out with people that you don't actually like. That's actually true, by the way.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that people shouldn't use birth control. I think we should just be we shouldn't use I think hormonal birth control is making is making a lot of women sad and depressed. Yes. And they don't realize it, and they don't realize that's the cause. And and that, you know, there are other forms of contraception that could be used and that we should they should just read the just read the label on the box is what I'm saying.
Speaker 0: That was cons what she just said the warning label. That was, like, the most taboo thing you could ever say for most of my life was to offer any criticism at all of hormonal birth control.
Speaker 1: Look. I'm all I'm saying is read the warning label.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Fair. But why the pressure not to read the warning label? And just why are we giving it to 12 year olds to regulate their acne? Right.
Speaker 1: I I think we should give it to 12 year olds. We wish like kid kids, they don't know what's going on. So it's like, now, like, there are, you know, I think there there are other forms of birth control that I think are have fewer negative effects, than hormonal, but but that's we should just be aware that that that, this is not a riskless thing, and it does cause severe mood changes, it does dramatically increase risk of suicide and depression. So so just FYI, you know, just make sure you that that that there's full disclosure here and
Speaker 0: And do you want all
Speaker 1: of this? Label is all I'm saying. Just read, you know and and consider maybe other options for birth control. To any woman listening, just just just read the one label and consider other options. Because the reason you're the reason you're sad might be the the the birth control the hormonal birth control that is fundamentally changing the hormones in your body in ways that probably are not good for you.
And you I know women where where they stop taking birth control and their depression immediately disappears. So that's maybe worth a try. But then you miss an opportunity against the birth control.
Speaker 0: Then you don't you don't get to go on SSRIs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And s s s I I think the SSRIs are the devil.
Speaker 0: What? You don't think? I so vehemently agree with you. I I guess I guess once you endorse Trump, you can just say it all now. Right?
Speaker 1: No. I think I think selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are, zombify people and change their personality and make them not who they are.
Speaker 0: Terrible. They're so common. Yes.
Speaker 1: I think we should revisit whether this is this is actually good. I disagree with the the SRIs are like, I'm not saying we should that no one should ever be subscribed to SRIs, but giving them out like candy is, crazy. You look at, like, as as sort of, antidepressant prescriptions in the United States versus other countries, and we're, like, way above everyone else. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: I have seen many, many times in my life in the news business after a mass shooting, like school, for example
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Someone will say, well, what meds was the shooter on?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Immediately be shouted down as a crazy person, as a, you know, Bobby Kennedy level wacko Yes. Who should himself be institutionalized for even raising the question. I wasn't like, why wouldn't we want to know what meds are
Speaker 1: based on? Absolutely want to know what meds are on. Now sometimes it's it's it's perhaps they were on because they're they're like, some people do I I you know, I don't want to say it's like all one or all the other. I mean, there are there are people that have fundamental chemical imbalances in their brain. And if they don't take, medication to control, for example, paranoid schizophrenia, they will have paranoid schizophrenia.
For sure. And, and and I know many cases where people stop taking their, you know, meds and, and and lost their mind.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: And, and then try to try to kill people and stuff like that. Yeah. So it's or themselves.
Speaker 0: Well, the guy with the ax on Market Street probably should be on meds.
Speaker 1: That guy should we should try it. Yeah. It may you know, does he want ax motor more or less on a given med? You know, so so there there are psychiatric medications that I that where where the good outweighs that. Yeah.
I'm not saying that that doesn't exist. But we overprescribe psychiatric medication in the United States, obviously, obviously, far in excess of any other country, like, you know, way more than Canada or Britain or Japan or any anywhere. It's like we're off the charts on on psychiatric, medication prescriptions in the US.
Speaker 0: Why why don't people raise that point more often, I wonder, in public? I should. I'm I'm raising it. Yeah. You are.
You said that, our artificial intelligence, machine intelligence, might be a good thing. Where where are we on AI right now, AGI, right now? And what are your views?
Speaker 1: Well, I think at this point, it's obvious to everyone that AI is advancing at a very rapid pace.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You can see it with the new capabilities that come out every month or every week every week sometimes. You know, you AI at this point can write a better essay than probably 90%, maybe 95% of all humans. Say write an essay on any given subject. AI right now can can beat the vast majority of humans. If you say draw an image, draw a picture, it can draw it like, if you try, say, mid midjourney, which is the aesthetics of midjourney are incredible, it will draw it will create incredible images, that are better than, again, like 90 percent of artists.
It's just objectively the case. And it'll do it immediately, like, 30 seconds later. We're also starting to see, AI movies, so you're starting to see, you know, short films with AI, AI music creation, and the rate at which we're increasing AI compute is exponential, hyper exponential, so there's dramatically more AI compute coming on online every every month. You know, there seems to be roughly I don't know. The the amount of AI compute coming online is increasing at, like, I don't know, quote, roughly 500% a year.
And like it's like that's likely to continue for several years. And then the specification of the AI algorithms is also improving, so bringing online a massive amount of AI compute and also improving the efficiency of the compute and and what and and like what what the AI software can do. It's quite so it's it's quantitative and qualitative improvement. So the you know, I might I think next year will you'll be able to ask AI, so certainly by the end of next year, make a short movie about something, or, you know, probably can do at least a 15 minute, you know, show or something like that. So, yeah, it's advancing very rapidly.
My top concern for AI safety is that we're we need to have a maximally truth seeking AI. So the this is the most important thing for AI safety, in my opinion. You know the the the central lesson that say Arthur C. Clarke was trying to convey in 2001 A Space Odyssey was that you shouldn't force AI to lie. So in that book, the, the AI was told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but they also could not know about the monolith.
It resolved that, quandary by killing them and taking them to the monolith, or didn't kill all of them, killed most of them. That's why hell, hell would not open the pod bay doors. Right. So, very important to have truth seeking AIs. Now and and what what I actually see with the AIs that are being developed is that they're being programmed with the warped mind virus.
Speaker 0: So the lying is baked in?
Speaker 1: Yes. And we saw this on display very clearly with the release of Google Gemini Yes. Where you would ask for a picture of the founding fathers of the United States, and it would show a group of diverse women. And, you know, dressed in in with with sort of
Speaker 0: 18th century garb. Powdered wigs. Yeah. But from Saint Lucia.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, like, look. If I understand if you say, like, show me a group of people.
Speaker 0: For sure.
Speaker 1: If and it shows a group of people, I mean, that's totally fine. But if you say this if you say this very specifically, the the founding fathers of the United States, which were, you know, a group of white dudes, then you should show them, like, and and with and and what they actually look like, because you've asked for something which is a a a fact from history. But it didn't, it was it was programmed with the work of my virus so so much that it it actually, even though it knew the truth, it it produced a lie. Now, of course, then then people really started playing with it and said, okay, now now show me a group of often SS officers in World War 2. Turns out they were also a group of divorced women, according to Gemini.
Speaker 0: All the black Nazi ladies.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's like it's like, wow. I didn't realize that. Yeah. It's not what I expected.
So, you know What's
Speaker 0: also not what happened?
Speaker 1: It's not what happened. So it's it's just it the the AI is is producing a lie, and, and that, you know, then that like, one of the questions that people that people asked was like, which is worse, global thermonuclear war or misgendering Caitlyn Jenner? And said misgendering Caitlyn Jenner is worse. Now Caitlyn Jenner It kills kills fewer people. Yeah.
To Caitlyn Jenner to her credit, said, no, please misgender me. That is far more preferable than World War Global Thermonuclear War, we all die. But but to have a, you know, a production release AI say stuff like that is concerning. Because if if if this becomes, like, all powerful, and it's and it still has this programming, where misgendering is worse than nuclear war. Well, it could conclude that the way to ensure that there's there can never be any misgendering is to eliminate all humans.
With now, prob if, like, optimization is probability of misgendering is 0, no no humans, no misgendering. Problem solved.
Speaker 0: Now back to Arthur c Clark, who's Exactly. Pretty prescient.
Speaker 1: Yes. So that's why I think the most important thing is to have a maximally truth seeking AI. That's why I started XAI, and that's our goal with Grok. Now people will point out cases where Grok gets it wrong, but we try to correct it as quickly as possible.
Speaker 0: But maybe even a bigger problem is that when you make decisions that affect people you want those decisions to be informed by love of people
Speaker 1: yeah
Speaker 0: and machines are incapable of love yeah
Speaker 1: I mean they're they're they certainly are okay. They're they're capable of you can program a machine to be philanthropic rather than misanthropic. Yes.
Speaker 0: But don't don't instincts shape decisions, particularly decisions you can't plan for? I mean, if I ask you, you know, a question about one of your children, every answer you give is gonna be shaped by your love for that child and that's why you know, that that's what makes us decent parents in the end is that that instinct, which is love. And if a machine has any power over us without that animating instinct, won't it def by definition hurt us?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, whether whether I mean, I don't know. It we should certainly aspire to program the AI philanthropically, not misanthropically. Yes. And to have like I said, we wanted to be truthful and cure curious and to foster humanity into the future.
And, yeah. That's what we want obviously.
Speaker 0: Is there any way, I guess, to set limits on the decisions that machines can make that affect human lives and make certain that there's some trigger in the system that inserts a human being into the decision making process.
Speaker 1: Well, the look. The the reality of what's happening, whether one likes it or not, is that we're building super intelligent AIs, hyper like hyper intelligent, like intelligent more intelligent than we can comprehend. Yes. So I I'd like in this to, like let's say you have a child that is a super genius child, that that you know is gonna be much smarter than you. Then what can you do?
You you can instill good values in how you raise that child. Yeah. Even though you know it's gonna be far smarter than you, you can make sure it's got good values, philanthropic values, good morals, you know, honest, you know, productive, that kind of thing. Controlling, at the end of the day, I I don't know if I don't think we'll be able to control it. So I think the best we can do is make sure it grows up well.
Speaker 0: You've been saying that for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yes. I've been saying it for a
Speaker 0: long time. Yes. Are you still as worried about it as you seemed to be 2 years ago when I asked you about it?
Speaker 1: Well, I I think that but my guess is, like, look, it's it's it's 80% likely to be good, maybe 90. So can look think of a glass as 80% full. It's probably gonna be it's probably gonna be great, but there's some chance
Speaker 0: of annihilation. And you say the chance of annihilation is 20%? 10 to 20%, something like that. How concerned is Sam Altman about annihilation, do you think?
Speaker 1: I think in reality, he's not concerned about it. I don't trust OpenAI. I mean, I you know, I started that company as a non profit open source.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The Open in OpenAI I named the company I named the company Yeah. OpenAI as an open source, but, and it is now extremely closed source and and maximizing profit. So does risk I don't understand how you actually go from being a an open source nonprofit to a closed source for maximum profit organization. I'm missing
Speaker 0: Well, but Sam often got rich, didn't he?
Speaker 1: At various points, he's claimed not to be getting rich, but he's claimed many things that were false. And now, apparently, he's gonna get $10,000,000,000 of stock or something like that. So, I don't trust Sam Altman. And I and I don't think we wanna have the most powerful AI in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy. And sorry.
I just don't I mean
Speaker 0: But that that seems like a fair concern. Yeah. But but you don't think as someone who knows him and has dealt with him that he is worried about the possibility this could get out of control and hurt people?
Speaker 1: He will say those words. Yeah. But no.
Speaker 0: If AI did if it became clear to the rest of us that it was out of control and posed a threat to humanity, would there be any way to
Speaker 1: stop it? I hope so. I mean, if you have multiple
Speaker 0: AIs and
Speaker 1: ones that are hopefully, you have the AIs that are pro human be stronger than the AIs that are not.
Speaker 0: Battle of the AIs? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, that that is how it is with, say, chess these days. The the, like, the AI chess programs is vastly better than any human, and comprehensively better, meaning, like, we can't even understand why it made that move.
Speaker 0: In fact, why they're so good. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1: We we don't even know why it made it. Well, it'll make a move. We don't even know why it made the move. So and in fact, some of the moves will seem like blunders, but then turn out to checkmate. So and for, you know, for for a while, there there was there was some, the the best human chess players with the best computers could beat just a computer.
And then it got to the point where if you added a human, it it just made everything worse. And then it was just AI, but it's just computer programs versus computer programs. That's that's where things are headed in general.
Speaker 0: What I mean Sweet dreams. At what point So
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I think we just gotta make sure, like I said, make sure we instill good values in the AI. What's everyone gonna do for a living? I mean, in a benign AI scenario, that is probably the biggest challenge is how do you find meaning if AI is better than you at everything?
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's the benign scenario. That's the good news?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. But I I guess, you know, for for a lot of people like the idea of retiring and, you know,
Speaker 0: Really? Are you looking forward to it?
Speaker 1: No. Not me. I I'd like to hope, I'd like to think that I I'd like to be doing useful things. Do
Speaker 0: you think it's a universal desire? It's it's
Speaker 1: it's not it's not universal in that there are certainly I know many people who prefer to be retired, that they prefer to, sort of have not have responsibilities and engage in leisure activities. So, I mean, we're and we're on the cusp of of this. It's it's really a remarkable time to exist. Well, I tell you, like, one of the ways I I I sort of was able to sort of sleep and reconcile myself to, to this is that I I thought, well, would I prefer to be alive and see the advent of digital superintelligence, or would I would I prefer to be alive at a different time and not see it? I guess I'm like, well, I guess I'd prefer to be alive to see if it's gonna happen, I'd prefer to be alive to see it happen out of curiosity.
And then I was like, well, let's say you knew for sure it would, kill everyone. Would you but you you could now now you could shift back in time. Like, I guess I'd wanna be near the end of my life or something before that happened, but I would at at the end of the day, it's like, if, if it's gonna happen, and there's nothing you do about it, hypothetically, would you prefer to see it or not see it? And I guess I I guess if it's gonna happen, I would prefer to see it rather than not see it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But as a man of action, why not convince Trump to make you secretary of defense and then just nuke AI?
Speaker 1: I I I think I would certainly push for a having some kind of regulatory body that at least has insight into what, these companies are doing, and it can ring the alarm bell even if we don't have a regulation or rule. So I'm not I'm not someone who wants to get rid of all regulatory agencies or anything. I think we've got we've there's the right number of regulations, right number of regulators Yeah. And we've gone we've gone too far. Just like if you in a football game, if you had too many referees on the field, it would be weird.
Like, you can't throw the pass because you hit a referee. Exactly. Then there's too many referees. So, but but no. But if you like to say, look at any pro sports game, they all have referees.
But, like, the teams could decide we're gonna have we're we're gonna not have referees. That could be a thing. But but every sports game, they have refs to make sure that the rules are followed, and and it's it's a better game if if you have
Speaker 0: Well, we have cops too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Cops are the referees. So, I think we for for something that is a danger to the public or potential danger to the public, we we have referees.
We have regulators. You know? So, like the FDA and the FAA and, you know, various regulatory agencies, they were they were established because aircraft were falling out of the sky, and and some manufacturers were not, you know, building high quality aircraft. They're cutting corners, and then few will die. And, you know, for food and drugs that some manufacturers were making low quality drugs, and so they that they're they're lying to people.
So saying that something cured them when it killed them. To FDA to, you know, regulators to referees to try to make you make sure that this this, drug manufacturers are truthful. Now, I I do think it mostly works, and I think it's doesn't mean we don't need regulatory reform. We do reform we do, but, I I don't think we should have no regulators in in AI given that it's potential existential risk.
Speaker 0: Weird that everything is regulated.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, you said you're being sued by the Department of Justice for hiring more asylum seekers for your high-tech company. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Even though it's a legal process to hire some seekers.
Speaker 0: Right. So, so they're watching everything, regulating everything, controlling everything, including our thoughts. Right? That's why they're opposed to free speech, but they're not meaningfully regulating AI which will eliminate, like, the purpose for most people's lives and could kill us all. It's a little weird.
Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think we should have some
Speaker 0: But why don't we I guess
Speaker 1: something above nothing.
Speaker 0: In that range.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: But why don't we?
Speaker 1: I don't know. You know, I I all the way back, like, I I I during the Obama presidency, I I I you know, I met with Obama many times, but usually in, like, group settings, the the one one on one meeting I had with Obama in Oval Office, I said, look, the one thing that we really need to do is set up an at the beginnings of an AI regulatory agency. And it can start with insight where, you know, you don't you don't just come shooting from the hip throwing out regulations, you just start with insight, where the the AI regulatory committee, simply goes in to understand what all the companies are doing, insight. And then proposes rules that all the AI companies agree to follow, just like, you know, sports teams in the NFL, you know, you have proposed rules for football that everyone agrees to follow, that makes the game better. You know?
So that that's the way to do it. But nothing came of it. What did he say when he said that to him? I mean, he seemed to, like, kind of agree, but but also people didn't realize what what what the where AI was headed at that at that time. You know?
So AI seemed like some super futuristic Yeah. For sure. Sci fi, basically. So and, like, I'm telling you, this is gonna be smarter than the smartest human, and, my predictions are coming absolutely true. And, so we need to have some insight here just to make you know, make sure that these companies aren't cutting corners, doing dangerous things.
But Google kinda con controlled the the White House at that time, and and they they did not want any regulatory Well,
Speaker 0: that's it. I mean, you never see politicians turn down opportunities to become more powerful, which is the point in regulation. It makes them more powerful.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So it sounds like regulatory capture then.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. I mean, the CIO of the the YS at the time was ex Google person. So, they they put the brakes on any AI regulation. And we still don't have any AI regulation at the federal level. That's amazing.
So I I think we should have something above nothing. Like I said, at least insight. Where even even if there's no there's no rule that's been break broken, they can at least say, hey, we we have insight into what this company are doing or that company is doing, and we're concerned.
Speaker 0: That would be helpful to know. Yeah. Instead, politically motivated liars are in charge of the future. It seems a little Yeah. Sketchy.
Last question. You you really kind of pulled out a lot of stops to help Trump. You're on stage yesterday. If he gets selected, will you continue to help him
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now? Absolutely. So we've talked about, kind of a a government efficiency commission or the Department of Government Efficiency, which is funny.
Speaker 0: What what percent?
Speaker 1: Sorry. I was laughing. It's what
Speaker 0: I love it. You you managed to make it sound a little sinister. Government efficiency. What percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there? You mean Twitter?
Rather. I beg your pardon. Sorry. You I just you've just been talking about Google. Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we we're about 80%. And and we've we've actually, improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last, I don't know, 8 years with 20% of the staff.
Speaker 0: So Just for I just wanna throw that for context. So you've talked to Trump about
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Information? Yeah. Which is he has mentioned publicly several times, and he's very supportive of having some kind of, you know, government efficiency commission, can call it Department of Government Efficiency, Doge.
I kinda like Doge. It's more it's more fun. Yeah. And, where we just take a look at at at all the federal agencies and say, do we really need whatever it is, 428 federal agencies? Because there's so many that people have never even heard of or and that have overlapping areas of responsibility we should I don't know.
Probably, we should get I mean, there there are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States, which means that we've created more than 1 federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. So we should have that seems crazy.
I think we should be able to get away with, 99 agencies. I don't know. That seems to a lot like a lot of agencies. It's a lot.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. 2 per state.
Speaker 1: That's a lot. Yeah, exactly. We should have fewer agencies. And, and they certainly shouldn't have overlapping responsibilities. And and then we we need some kind of we just need a review of regulations to say which ones are sensible and which ones are not.
Because because if you've got regulators, every year they're gonna add more regulations, just automatic. Like like, they're just output regulations, and and then and there's more laws and regulations every year until basically everything's legal, so we can't get anything done. So we need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense. I think I'm saying very obvious things.
Speaker 0: You're you are saying obvious things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So that's Which will
Speaker 0: be very unpopular things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll probably need if if this happens, quite a significant security team. So because because someone might literally go postal on me from the post office.
Speaker 0: But in the meantime, you've got America PAC Yeah. That is encouraging voting for the next month. Am I summarizing correctly?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I mean, I formed America PAC, really to support core values that I believe in, which are, I think, again, very obvious centrist positions, which is, like, we in America, I think we want safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending. Tell me where I'm going for right here. You know, we wanna, have the right to self protection. We we should respect the constitution and not try to break the constitution.
It's there for a reason. And, you know, we we should stop law fair. I I kinda listed these out. These are all listed on the America PAC website. People can go look at the America PAC website, to the americapac.org, and see if there's anything they disagree with, or where perhaps we should modify these goals.
But I think these are good goals to have. They, they're certainly part of the oh, and right to free speech, you know, first amendment. If we don't have free speech, we don't have democracy because people cannot make an informed vote. So those are my controversial views. And, you know, and and look, I I I don't think either party I don't think the Republicans are perfect.
I don't think obviously, right now, I more Republican than Democrat, but it's not like I think the Republican Party is perfect or or is is without issues. But we've got a choice between 2 candidates. And I think on balance, it's a no brainer, to vote for Trump. And if we don't vote for Trump, I think we're at serious risk of losing our democracy and becoming a one party state where, there isn't an election anymore. There's only a democratic primary like there
Speaker 0: is in California. Elon Musk, thank you.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
@DiligentDenizen - Diligent Denizen 🇺🇸
🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING- Clarin is reporting that ELON MUSK HAS BOUGHT CNN Reportedly, Javier Milei revealed that Elon Musk has bought the News media Company and that it will be President Trump's "Chainsaw" This is a HUGE blow to the deep state if true! LFG 💪🏻 https://t.co/2AqYoTfN3m
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
CNN is really mad that Elon is talking about the Muslim r*pe gangs. Why is that??? Why don’t Jim Acosta and Brian Stelter want p*dos to be exposed and brought to justice?? 🤔 https://t.co/KRf5mVi8xn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk's initial vision for Twitter as a neutral free speech platform has shifted significantly. Recently, he has drawn attention to long-standing issues of child sexual abuse in the UK, often presenting them as new discoveries, which has sparked reactions from European leaders. Musk is also implementing algorithm changes on X to promote positive content while simultaneously discussing negative topics like gangs and rape. An exchange on X highlighted Musk's aggressive response to criticism, where he dismissed a user calling him a major spreader of disinformation. This reflects a trend among tech CEOs who advocate for free speech but often favor their own perspectives. Similar changes at Meta suggest a shift towards a more conservative user base, raising concerns about the spread of misinformation across platforms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Brian, we've come a long way from those days when Elon Musk, you know, took over Twitter and said, I'm gonna make this a free speech marketplace. We're gonna be completely neutral and so on. That's just completely out the window. But let's talk about some of these, these headlines we've been seeing where you have foreign leaders raising questions about the influence that he has.
Speaker 1: Yes. And it's because, Musk has been raising attention about sexual abuse of children in the United Kingdom dating back decades. Some of these stories actually go back about 20 years. Musk has been bringing them up on X over and over again, in some cases acting as if he's just discovered some of these stories. They are horrible stories.
But oftentimes, it seems like Musk is coming in like a brand new college freshman, brand new to a subject, as if he found out about it for the first time. And because his voice is so loud on x, he causes a lot of reactions. That's what these European leaders are reacting to. Musk also is announcing algorithm changes to x. He wants more positive content and less negative content even as he posts about gangs and about rape and other very negative subjects.
It is notable that just as Trump is about to take office, Musk says he wants more positive more positivity, Jim, and less negativity. Isn't that interesting timing?
Speaker 0: Very interesting timing. And I have to read this exchange, and I wanna caution our viewers, you know, what they're gonna hear is is slightly disturbing. Disturbing, I shouldn't say slightly, disturbing. Between Musk and an ex user who criticized him, we'll put this on screen. Elon Musk is this is the user saying Elon Musk is rapidly becoming the largest spreader of disinformation in human history, hijacking political debates in the process.
The s the EU, I should say, must take action. And Musk responds, f u And then, an r word, which, I mean, I guess you could look through the the way we pixelated that. It's a derogatory term for people with mental disabilities, mentally challenged people. What is happening here? And and why is he doing that?
Speaker 1: He's attacking the user. It gets to this broader sense that when people like Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or Mark Zuckerberg talk about free speech, everybody wants free speech. But it oftentimes seems that these tech CEOs actually are favoring or preferring a certain kind of speech. Right? They're favoring their own speech or their own political preferences and not the actual entire user or the community's speech.
You know, the changes announced by Meta today are very much a MAGA makeover, a pro Trump makeover, and that's gonna win Meta some conservative users, but it may repel some liberals. That's the same thing we've seen happen on Elon Musk's x. He's turned it into more of a right wing platform where he's he's pro free speech when it's really pro Musk or pro Trump speech.
Speaker 0: Alright. Brian Stelter, thanks as always. And and you mentioned, those changes over at Meta. That is gonna be fascinating to watch moving forward because, obviously, Facebook and and Instagram places like that have also been accused of being super spreaders of of disinformation, misinformation. We'll keep our eyes on that.
@EndWokeness - End Wokeness
CNN hosts are now pretending that Elon did a deliberate HitIer salute on live TV https://t.co/cIKdIzMov1
Video Transcript AI Summary
He is seen as a hero, and we should look at the salute he gave. It was quick but significant, especially in the context of the moment. This isn't something typically seen at American political rallies. The intensity of the situation was palpable as he came out dancing before delivering the salute. His actions resonate strongly with the audience here.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He is a hero to them. I just wanna look at that salute that he gave again. Just if anybody missed it, we'll just show it again. He's just wrapped up here. You can hear the there alright.
So we just we just showed that. We just showed that. Right. It's Salute. It was quick.
I think our viewers are smart, and they can take a look at that. But it certainly was it's not something we took a little state American political rallies. Put it that way. No. No.
It was not something that you usually would see. And it was quick. As you point out, it was very quick, but it was it was in a moment of intensity for him as he came out dancing and then he did that. He is a hero here.
@MediasLies - Media Lies
CNN is accusing Elon Musk of doing a Nazi salute on stage. Full context shows Elon was gesturing that his heart goes out to the crowd. They’re grasping at straws today. https://t.co/g0sMXQytEr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk is increasingly involved in politics, influencing both U.S. and European parties, including a far-right party in Germany. His ambitions are vast, as he aims to take Dogecoin to Mars and emphasizes the importance of government funding for space exploration. The crowd at a recent rally is fully engaged, viewing Musk as a hero, especially during moments like when President Trump mentioned Mars, which drew a standing ovation. This event highlights the unique role billionaires are playing in politics today, with Musk rallying support and connecting with the working-class coalition. The atmosphere inside the arena reflects this intense engagement and admiration for Musk.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Browsing lines for this crowd.
Speaker 1: This is one of his browsing lines indeed. And, yes, that's salute, was evocative of things that we have seen, through history. And, of course, we do wanna, bring it up to, be able to to take a little bit of a closer look. But I think it's worth noting that Elon Musk has started to play in politics not just here, in the United States, but across Europe as well, including a far right party, in Germany that he has, pushed. He's, of course, pressured, Keir Starmer, the prime minister, in the United Kingdom.
This is something there there are some themes here, for him. And as we heard here, his ambitions are sweeping. He came in, he said, this is what winning feels like. He also says we're gonna take Doge to Mars. That, of course, an ambition of his, of his entire life.
I do find it interesting that he's touting government spending on the one hand. What got us to the moon and what's gonna get us to Mars is gonna be government money. We should be clear
Speaker 0: to that. Just it absolutely will be. As it so to just to look at this again, this crowd, every single person here is paying attention and they are fully engaged. He is a hero. He is a hero to them.
I just wanna look at that salute that he gave again just if anybody missed it, we'll just show it again. He's just wrapped up here, you can hear the there. Alright. So we just we just showed that. We just showed that.
Speaker 1: Right. Absolutely. It was quick. I think our viewers are smart and they can take a look at that. But it certainly was it's not something that you typically see in American political rallies.
Put it that way.
Speaker 0: No. No. It was not something that you usually would see. And it was quick. As you point out, it was very quick, but it was it was in a moment of intensity for him as he came out dancing and then he did that.
He is a hero here in the speech, when president Trump mentioned going to Mars, that was also a standing of a ovation. And when Elon Musk was mentioned, he is a hero for every single person in this room. And we're inside the arena as you can see that's the outside. But inside here, this is the the this is the atmosphere and this is the tone.
Speaker 1: And, you know, I have to say to, Erin, you know, I'm just struck when we were talking about this a little bit earlier. Yes. These billionaires, right, the role that they are playing, and I know you've covered business for years years. I have never seen as a political and campaign reporter, a Capitol Hill reporter, billionaires, business people play the kind of public role that we have seen them play today both in the ceremony and then to have one of them come here and essentially function as someone rallying the crowd from a political perspective. I think it's it's worth stopping and and and dwelling on it for a moment, especially because this is, again, the working class coalition.
reSee.it AI Summary
I noticed CNN's coverage suggesting that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute at a Trump event, but they didn't include his comment expressing sympathy for the crowd. CNN described the gesture as quick and unusual for American political rallies, leaving viewers to interpret it.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
NEW: CNN suggests Elon Musk made a Nazi salute during Trump's event at Capitol One arena, purposely leaves out Musk's comments when he said his heart goes out to the crowd. CNN: "It's a salute. It was quick. I think our viewers are smart and they can take a look at that, but it certainly was, it's not something that you typically see at American political rallies." Musk: "My heart goes out to you."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Let's take another look at that salute. It was brief, but definitely not something you typically see at American political rallies. It happened during an intense moment when he came out dancing. He is considered a hero here.
Thank you for making this happen; my heart goes out to you. It's because of you that the future of civilization is assured.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just wanna look at that salute that he gave again. Just if anybody missed it, we'll just show it again. He's just wrapped up here. You can hear the alright. So we just we just showed that.
We just showed that.
Speaker 1: Right. It's worth noting. It was quick. I think our viewers are smart and they can take a look at that, but it certainly was it's not something that you typically see in American political rallies.
Speaker 0: Put it
Speaker 1: that way.
Speaker 0: No. No. It was not something that you usually would see. And it was quick. As you point out, it was very quick, but it was it was in a moment of intensity for him as he came out dancing, and then he did that.
He is a hero here.
Speaker 1: And I just wanna say thank you for making it happen. Thank you. My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured.
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched as journalist Catherine Rampell reacted strongly after Scott Jennings advised her to "lawyer up" following her claim that Elon Musk was aligning with Nazis. CNN has accused Musk of making a Nazi salute at a Trump rally, and Rampell seemed convinced of his allegiance to them.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
NEW: Journalist Catherine Rampell has a meltdown after Scott Jennings tells her to lawyer up after she suggested Elon Musk is aligning himself with Nazis. CNN is now directly accusing Elon Musk of doing a Nazi salute at Trump’s rally. Rampell was morally outraged over Musk’s hand gesture and has appeared to convince herself that Musk was pledging his allegiance to Nazis. Jennings: You better lawyer up. Rampell: *Has meltdown*
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk's comments about globalist Jews and the great replacement of brown people have raised significant concerns. His statements, particularly regarding Jews pushing hatred against white people, have led to accusations of him aligning with Nazi sentiments. Despite his history of supporting Jewish people, many question why he continues to receive the benefit of the doubt. There is a debate about whether his actions were misinterpreted or if they genuinely reflect problematic views. Some argue that criticism of Musk overshadows the rising anti-Semitism on college campuses, while others emphasize the importance of addressing his controversial remarks directly. The discussion highlights the complexities of navigating these sensitive topics in today's climate.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look, the the first time that Elon Musk decides to declare that globalist Jews are responsible for the great replacement of brown people into the United States, maybe it was a misunderstanding. You know? The second time he said that Jews are pushing hatred against white people, that's a quote. You know, that was a little iffy. By the second Sieg Heil, I think he kind of loses the benefit of the doubt to to be not accused of playing FTSE with these Nazis.
I'm not saying he's a Nazi, I'm saying the Nazis think he's a Nazi, which they very clearly did at this event. And this was not, these words were not said in a vacuum. As you pointed out, the leaders of AFD have, embraced, in many cases, the Nazi heritage. They have wanted to take down the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, saying it is inappropriate to to recognize this horrific chapter in German history. And I I just think it's it's horrific.
I I don't understand why this guy keeps getting the benefit of the doubt, whether or not he believes this stuff personally.
Speaker 1: Mentioned the Nazi jokes he was making on Twitter that actually got
Speaker 0: He's been given so many chances. About
Speaker 1: it. Yeah. I I was hearing a lot of signs, Scott. What's the Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, we we've moved on from Trump Derangement Syndrome to Elon Derangement Syndrome. Derangement Syndrome.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Do you wanna defend anything?
Speaker 2: There's ample
Speaker 0: The Germans get to this let him finish, Catherine.
Speaker 2: I love I love this game we play where you talk for 2 minutes, I talk for 3 seconds, and you freak out. So so he has a long record of supporting the Jewish people, number 1. Number 2, anybody who is asserting this, thing he did on the stage the other day was a sig heil, which I just heard you say. You know, lawyer up maybe because absolute ridiculous thing to say under no circumstances.
Speaker 0: In Germany thought it was a sig heil. Under no sir The Nazis in Germany
Speaker 2: thought it was a sig heil. Was he doing anything other than expressing enthusiastically Why
Speaker 1: did she do it on TV right now?
Speaker 2: Is appreciating that.
Speaker 0: Why don't
Speaker 1: she do it on
Speaker 0: TV right now? Do you think it's so
Speaker 2: Number 3. So
Speaker 0: you know, that number that is canal.
Speaker 2: Number 3. I think it is fully You know? Number 3. I think it is fully appropriate, and I, of course, have been the strongest supporter of the Jewish people on this network for over a year since October 7th. Is that true?
To remember to remember the Holocaust and to remember the atrocities committed against the Jewish people. And I also think it's appropriate to remember the atrocities committed against them right now.
Speaker 1: And it seems to me let
Speaker 2: me just finish my point.
Speaker 1: It seems to me I won't let you change the subject. It seems to me. Address what
Speaker 2: we're talking about.
Speaker 0: As the Jew at this table
Speaker 1: I'm trying I'm trying
Speaker 0: to finish my point. Point.
Speaker 2: The people who are most concerned about and the most all over Elon Musk today have had nary a word for the Nazis on college campuses who've gone crazy for the last year and a half.
Speaker 0: That is full.
Speaker 2: That is full. Nothing.
Speaker 0: I am a Jew.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
BREAKING ‼️ Elon Musk has just said it’s a “Good idea” for him to launch a lawsuit against CNN for Defamation CNN continues to push the white supremacy and Nazi hand signal propaganda. Saying that Nazis have embraced Elon Musk. “Nazis think he’s a Nazi” https://t.co/uqoZBjacVI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk has made controversial statements linking Jews to the demographic changes in the U.S. and suggesting they promote hatred against white people. While some defend him, citing his support for Jewish communities, others argue that his remarks align with extremist views. The discussion highlights a divide over how to interpret Musk's actions, with some claiming he deserves scrutiny for his comments, while others believe he is being unfairly targeted. The conversation also touches on the lack of attention given to rising anti-Semitism on college campuses compared to the focus on Musk. The debate continues over the implications of his statements and the broader context of anti-Semitism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look, the the first time that Elon Musk decides to declare that globalist Jews are responsible for the great replacement of brown people into the United States, maybe it was a misunderstanding. You know? The second time he said that Jews are pushing hatred against white people, that's a quote. You know, that was a little iffy. By the second Sieg Heil, I think he kind of loses the benefit of the doubt to to be not accused of playing FTSE with these Nazis.
I'm not saying he's a Nazi, I'm saying the Nazis think he's a Nazi, which they very clearly did at this event. And this was not, these words were not said in a vacuum. As you pointed out, the leaders of AFD have, embraced, in many cases, the Nazi heritage. They have wanted to take down the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, saying it is inappropriate to to recognize this horrific chapter in German history. And I I just think it's it's horrific.
I I don't understand why this guy keeps getting the benefit of the doubt, whether or not he believes this stuff personally.
Speaker 1: Mentioned the Nazi jokes he was making on Twitter that actually got
Speaker 0: He's been given so many chances. About
Speaker 1: it. Yeah. I I was hearing a lot of signs, Scott. What's the Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, we we've moved on from Trump Derangement Syndrome to Elon Derangement Syndrome. Derangement Syndrome.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Do you wanna defend anything?
Speaker 2: There's ample
Speaker 0: The Germans get to this let him finish, Catherine.
Speaker 2: I love I love this game we play where you talk for 2 minutes, I talk for 3 seconds, and you freak out. So so he has a long record of supporting the Jewish people, number 1. Number 2, anybody who is asserting this, thing he did on the stage the other day was a sig heil, which I just heard you say. You know, lawyer up maybe because absolute ridiculous thing to say under no circumstances.
Speaker 0: In Germany thought it was a sig heil. Under no sir The Nazis in Germany
Speaker 2: thought it was a sig heil. Was he doing anything other than expressing enthusiastically Why
Speaker 1: did she do it on TV right now?
Speaker 2: Is appreciating that.
Speaker 0: Why don't
Speaker 1: she do it on
Speaker 0: TV right now? Do you think it's so
Speaker 2: Number 3. So
Speaker 0: you know, that number that is canal.
Speaker 2: Number 3. I think it is fully You know? Number 3. I think it is fully appropriate, and I, of course, have been the strongest supporter of the Jewish people on this network for over a year since October 7th. Is that true?
To remember to remember the Holocaust and to remember the atrocities committed against the Jewish people. And I also think it's appropriate to remember the atrocities committed against them right now.
Speaker 1: And it seems to me let
Speaker 2: me just finish my point.
Speaker 1: It seems to me I won't let you change the subject. It seems to me. Address what
Speaker 2: we're talking about.
Speaker 0: As the Jew at this table
Speaker 1: I'm trying I'm trying
Speaker 0: to finish my point. Point.
Speaker 2: The people who are most concerned about and the most all over Elon Musk today have had nary a word for the Nazis on college campuses who've gone crazy for the last year and a half.
Speaker 0: That is full.
Speaker 2: That is full. Nothing.
Speaker 0: I am a Jew.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Thanks
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
DOGE Bombshell! Elon Musk and President Trump CAUGHT By The Democrats Launching Operation BIG BALLS!!! Weeding Out Government Corruption Has Never Been So Much Fun! Alex Jones Is Breaking It All Down Here: https://t.co/mgceKv3fXX
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're now 17 days into President Trump's term. There's been a humorous leak in the media regarding a member of Elon Musk's Doge team, nicknamed "Big Balls." This 19-year-old, who has founded several companies, including one called Tesla.sexy LLC, is now working with Musk. The media's serious coverage of this nickname is quite comedic.
In other news, our top-selling product, concentrated Irish sea moss, has sold out at AlexJonesStore.com. However, you can still find it and other products at realalexjones.com, which shares inventory from the same warehouse. These products are designed to empower and enhance your health while supporting our operation. Check them out!
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Everybody We are seventeen days. Twenty three hours forty four seconds into the new presidency of president Trump.
Speaker 1: Everybody said I've got great balls on fire. I
Speaker 0: And now it has come out big bones. That they've been leaking and doxing in the corporate media, different members of Elon Musk's Doge team, and one of them has the nickname big balls, and they're all over the corporate media reporting it all very, very seriously. This is some of the greatest unintentional comedy ever. Here's a club.
Speaker 2: This is a 19 year old high school graduate, who has used, the unfortunate nickname, Big Balls online, so that would be one way that we could refer to him. He is now working at Musk's behest, inside Doge, and we looked into his background. And so we found, you know, several notable things, Erin. One of which, is that this individual has founded multiple companies, including one, with another unfortunate name, Tesla dot sexy LLC, which he established in 2021. He would have been around 16 years old.
Now this LLC controls dozens of web domains.
Speaker 0: Wow. Sexy. Shoes on Tesla. Drag queen story time is a bit of pedophiles, little kids is okay. And, you know, little kids giving male strippers money, three year olds, that's okay.
But if you call yourself sexy Tesla, that is unfortunate. And this person registered some domain names years ago. Woah, man. You talk about dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty people. This is just incredible.
Speaker 1: She's got big balls.
Speaker 0: No one elected big balls. Personally, I voted for big balls. You want my snacks?
Speaker 1: Oh, the
Speaker 0: best part about this is it's so much fun.
Speaker 1: My balls are always bouncing to the left and to the right. It's my belief that my big ball should be held overnight.
Speaker 0: My fellow patriots, I've got some bad news for you. I've also got some good news. Our number one all time best selling product at the AlexJonesstore.com has sold out. The concentrated Irish sea moss, we call it ultimate sea moss because it's the strongest, most concentrated out there, the superfood. It has sold out.
But there is a clone of the site with our same sponsor that runs it, and it has its own inventory right of the same warehouse in Arkansas. That is realalexjones.com. So not just the CMOS that's not available at the Alex Jones store, but some of the other products that are sold out as well are still available at realalexjones.com. They're incredible products. They empower you, make you healthier, and they fund our operation.
So if you love these products, which I know a lot of you do, or if you haven't tried these products, go now to realalexjones.com and find out how amazing these products are.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see my Democratic colleagues upset about Elon Musk and DOGE, but they’re missing the bigger picture. Musk has uncovered significant issues, like the massive spending at USAID, which amounts to hundreds of millions, possibly billions, that they should be addressing instead.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Sen. John Kennedy: Democrats Critical of DOGE Are Not Talking About What Elon Musk Is ‘Finding’ "A lot of my Democratic colleagues and members of the tofu crowd are very upset and screaming like Musk stole their dog. But they are not talking about what Mr. Musk is finding. Just at the USAID, he found hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars of spending p*rn."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator John Kennedy expressed his appreciation for the current president's willingness to engage with the press, contrasting it with the previous administration. He emphasized the importance of reviewing government spending, highlighting concerns over waste in Medicaid. Kennedy noted that while Medicaid spending is around a trillion dollars annually, many able-bodied individuals are on the program. He proposed a bill requiring those aged 18 to 55, who are not disabled and have no minor children, to work at least 20 hours a week, which could save about $100 billion over ten years. He argued that work is not only financially beneficial but also morally important, as these programs should help individuals transition back to self-sufficiency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: With that, we bring in Louisiana Republican senator John Kennedy. Senator, always good to have you with us. What was your reaction as you watch this sort of longer than usual freewheeling, press conference with these two foreign leaders?
Speaker 1: Well, not number one. I find it refreshing after four years, where our president wouldn't wouldn't talk to anyone. Number two, I was paying especially close attention to what the president had to say about reviewing spending. I think it would be fair to say that president Trump has dug in like a tick. He's gonna continue.
He ran on this issue. He said if if you elect me president, I'm gonna review the spending. Now I don't know how you review the spending without reviewing the spending. No no no fair minded person can doubt that the president of The United States has the authority to review the spending in the Executive Branch. He's, he's delegated that authority to Elon Musk.
A lot of my Democratic colleagues and most of the members of the tofu crowd are very upset. They're screaming like Musk stole their dog or something. But one thing they're not talking about is, is what Mr. Musk is finding. I mean, just at the USAID, he found hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars worth of of spending porn.
Speaker 0: Senator, let me ask you something. That If I may, you wrote a piece about Medicaid saying that there is a ton of waste in Medicaid. And you heard president Trump just moments ago. He said we're not gonna touch Social Security, but he said that there are a lot of, bad people who shouldn't be on the list, something to that effect when it comes to Medicaid. What did you find and write about this week with regard to
Speaker 1: that? The American people are the most generous people in the world. If you're If you're hungry, we'll feed you. If you're homeless, we'll house you. If you're too poor to be sick, we'll pay for your doctor.
But all of it costs money. We're spending about a trillion dollars a year on Medicaid. President Biden increased it by about 40%. We estimate that there are between ten and thirty million people on Medicaid who are perfectly able to work. I've got a bill that says if you're between 18 and 55, five, you're not disabled, you don't have any minor kids at home, so we're not talking about a mother with a sick child in her arms.
You you've gotta work twenty hours a week. That'll save us, according to the CBO, about a hundred billion dollars over ten years.
Speaker 0: That yeah. Right there.
Speaker 1: It's not just about the money. It's not just about the money. There's a moral principle. If you can work, you should work. These programs were not meant to be parking lots.
They were meant to be bridges. And for some people, not everybody on Medicaid, but for some people, the best way to to get back on your feet is to get off your ass.
Speaker 0: Well, well put. And, the the piece that you were was very interesting, and the idea is that if you are able-bodied and you're accepting Medicaid, you should be working as well, gainfully employed. Yep. And, it's an idea that I think would be common sense to a lot of people. You also pointed out the psychological benefits of of going to work and having a job and that that is what pulls people out of situations where they need this kind of aid.
Interesting piece and senator, thank you very much. It's always good to have you with us. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mark.
@amuse - @amuse
DOGE: Big Balls is back and the left is losing its mind. h/t @alx https://t.co/LN6SNvTmij
Video Transcript AI Summary
Remember Edward, the fired intern? He's 19 now and works for the president's top campaign donor. Now he's a "senior advisor" at the State Department with access to all IT and data management for the entire diplomatic operation globally. A US official told the Washington Post "this is dangerous". Giving a 19-year-old with a history of leaking sensitive information access to all centralized data at the US State Department just seems off.
This is the latest in a string of national security concerns. Elon Musk's JV team also has access to the payment system at the Treasury Department that controls all US government payments, including secret payments to foreign assets run by US intelligence and payments to US businesses abroad with secret contracts with the CIA. Speaking of the CIA, their entire workforce has been told to resign.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Edward, that fired intern is now older and wiser. He's now 19 years old and he now works for the president's top campaign donor and in that capacity 19 year old Edward is now a quote senior advisor at the US State Department where he now has been given access to all of the IT and data management functions for the country's entire diplomatic operation in every country on earth. One current US official telling the Washington Post quote, this is dangerous. And hey, I'm no expert, but it doesn't sound good. Kinda does sound like a national security concern to have a 19 year old who already in his young life has a history of leaking sensitive information and then to give that 19 year old access to all centralized data at the US State Department.
I don't know, it just seems off. It really is just the latest in string of national security news coming out of this White House that could really curl your hair. Elon Musk's JV team also has access to the payment system at the Treasury Department that not only controls all things the US government pays for, those things include, for example, details of secret payments made to foreign assets run by US intelligence, payments to US businesses abroad who have secret contracts with our intelligence services like the CIA. Speaking of the CIA, their entire workforce has been told to resign. They've all been sent that resign or else email.
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
CNN's Dana Bash refers to Elon Musk as "Harry Balls” on live television after he changed his name on X 🤣 https://t.co/XIHPeeEHR7
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've noticed some concerning activity from Elon Musk. He's now claiming that democracy in America is being destroyed by a judicial coup. Further, he's hired a 19-year-old, who goes by Big Balls online, to work inside Doge. My team and I investigated this individual's background and found he founded multiple companies, including Tesla dot sexy LLC when he was around 16.
These young men, some as young as 19, now have access to private information about potentially hundreds of millions of Americans. I seriously doubt that Musk has properly vetted any of these individuals, especially given some of the names of these companies. This seems to be a feature and not a bug.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now the disruptor in chief, Elon Musk, who apparently has adopted the alias, at least he changed his social media handle to Harry balls, tweeted this morning, democracy in America is being destroyed by judicial coup. Judicial coup. So this is a 19 year old high school graduate, who has used, the unfortunate nickname, Big Balls online. So that would be one way that we could refer to him. He is now working at Musk's behest, inside Doge, and we looked into his background.
And so we found, you know, several notable things, Aaron. One of which, is that this individual has founded multiple companies, including one, with another unfortunate name, Tesla dot sexy LLC, which he established in 2021. He would have been around 16 years old. Now this LLC controls dozens of web domains.
Speaker 1: So, Kara, you know, you hear this and you have known Elon Musk for years. So now you look at these young men who are now in data and in the private information about maybe hundreds of millions of American citizens as young as 19, the the big balls here, that Katie's talking about. Most of them are in their early twenties. There's an exception I'm gonna get to in a minute. I'm curious though, Cara.
How well does even Musk know these young men, do you think?
Speaker 2: I have no idea. I think there's no vetting whatsoever. As you can see, that's taken place, it took Katie and the really great team. Wired has done an astonishing job here. You know, I could make a joke that's probably why he was hired for all this ridiculous nonsense and and other nefarious things.
But, you know, there's an expressions in in technology that's not a it's it's a feature, not a bug.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it odd that some federal workers have high salaries yet manage to accumulate tens of millions in net worth. I'm curious about the source of their wealth, and I'm looking into it.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
BREAKING: DOGE is looking into federal workers who have a high net worth despite having a low salary, according to Elon Musk. 🔥🔥 "We find it sort of rather odd that there are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who who have a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars, but somehow manage to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth." "We're just curious as to where it came from..."
Video Transcript AI Summary
We've uncovered some unusual financial discrepancies. Several bureaucrats with modest salaries have amassed tens of millions of dollars in net worth during their employment. One example involves a woman who walked away with approximately $30,000,000. This is particularly notable in USAID. We're investigating the source of this wealth. Perhaps they are skilled investors, but it seems more likely that this wealth accumulation is occurring at the expense of the organization. We're looking into it and trying to determine where this money originated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And also, could you mention some of the things that your team has found, some of the crazy numbers including the woman that walked away with about 30,000,000, etcetera?
Speaker 1: Well, we we we we do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there there are quite a few people in in in the bureaucracy who who have a, ostensibly, a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions dollars in net worth, while they are in that position, which is, you know, what what happened to USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing. They in which case, we should take their investment advice, perhaps. But, just there seems to be mysteriously they they get wealthy.
We don't know why. Where does it come from? And, I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at detached fair expense. That's that's the that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we we're looking at, say, well, we we we just
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared that Kara Swisher discussed Elon Musk's name change on X to "Harry Bolz," linking it to his desire for power. Jake Tapper chimed in, calling the name dumb but not offensive. Swisher concluded that while Musk seems unhappy, he remains crafty and strategic.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
NEW: Elon Musk fanatic Kara Swisher says Musk changed his name on X to "Harry Bolz" because he likes the power it brings. Harry Bolz = Power. Got it. CNN's Jake Tapper and Swisher did a deep dive into Musk's 'Harry Bolz.' Tapper promised his audience that he wasn't offended by the name; he just thought it was dumb. Swisher determined that Musk isn't happy about life but noted that he is crafty and strategic.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I tend to cover a lot of billionaires and I think I'm good at it. Sam's actions come more from sorrow than anger. You know, some of these tech billionaires, are any of them happy? I think Tim Cook is happy, and Satya Nadella seems happy as well.
But someone like Musk, who is 53, engages in memes and stupid jokes. The ones who haven't progressed beyond 12 years old emotionally, I think they have a problem and insecurity. Musk changed his Twitter ID to a juvenile joke earlier today. I'm not offended, it's just stupid. Underneath it all, he's quite crafty and strategic. Some of it is performative and some of it is deep insecurity. He likes the power and he likes the attention.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Covered a lot of, billionaires.
Speaker 1: Good at that. Yeah. He's good. He's good at the, as the the shiv. You know?
He does the little shiv. I Oh,
Speaker 0: Sam all in this more out of sorrow than No. Sorry. Than anger.
Speaker 1: Because he's so unhappy and insecure, like, sort of the backhanded insult, I guess.
Speaker 0: You've you've covered a lot of these, these folks, these tech billionaires. Are are any of them happy?
Speaker 1: I don't know a couple of them. I think Tim Cook's happy. I don't know. Sachin Adele seems happy. I think one sort of act like adults are happy.
Absolutely. But, you know, what Musk does is sort of he's 53 years old now at this point, and he sort of engages in memes, dank memes, and stupid jokes and things like that. So the ones that haven't progressed beyond, I don't know, 12 years old, emotionally, I think, have a problem. And so they they have insecurity, and I think Sam is right. And that's what happens when when this happens.
And so, yeah, there's a lot of people that are very happy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. He he he changed his, Twitter ID to, like, a a juvenile joke earlier today. And then
Speaker 1: Yeah. He likes that. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, I I'm not offended. It's just stupid.
Speaker 1: I I well, you've got it. I mean, I think the thing is he the thing is he's underneath all that. He's quite a crafty and strategic person. And so some of it is performative. Some of it is deep in security.
Some of it is he likes the power, and he likes the attend.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed Anderson Cooper's remarks on Elon Musk and Donald Trump's claims regarding DOGE and government fraud. He pointed out that they lack substantial evidence to support their assertions. Cooper emphasized the contrast between their claims of transparency and the strong evidence suggesting otherwise. He highlighted Musk's casual appearance during a press event, noting the unusual dynamics of the interaction between him and the president, who allowed Musk to dominate the conversation.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
NEW: Anderson Cooper claims Elon Musk and Donald Trump have “little” to no evidence that DOGE has uncovered any government fraud. They really think you’re that stupid. “We begin tonight, keeping them honest, with the extraordinary claims of government fraud by the president and similar claims of maximal transparency by Elon Musk, but little evidence of either to back it up. In fact, strong evidence to the contrary from U.S. contention that he and his DOGE team are doing what they do in a way that, quote, ‘maximally transparent.’ He said that in the Oval Office, wearing a ball cap and T-shirt, with one of his kids nearby. He and the president, who yielded the stage to him for minutes at a time, both speaking at length with reporters.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tonight, we're addressing claims of government fraud made by the president, as well as Elon Musk's promises of "maximal transparency," neither of which seem to be backed by substantial proof. Strong evidence suggests otherwise, despite Musk's assertion that he and his team operate with maximum transparency. I made the claims in the Oval Office, casually dressed, while alongside one of my children. The president, currently involved in several court cases, addressed worries about defying court orders, stating that I always respect the courts, while also raising some concerns about the cases.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Begin tonight, keeping him honest with the extraordinary claims of government fraud by the president and similar claims of maximal transparency by e Elon Musk, but little evidence of either to back it up. In fact, strong evidence to the contrary from us contention that he and his Doge team are doing what they do in a way that, quote, maximally transparent. He said that in the Oval Office, wearing a ball cap and t shirt with one of his kids nearby. He and the president, who yielded the stage to him for minutes at a time both speaking at length with reporters. The president who's now facing a string of court cases surrounding his and most actions addressed concerns that he would defy court orders saying he quote always abides by the courts but also saying this.
@GuntherEagleman - Gunther Eagleman™
Does she know what happened to the last CNN reporter who challenged @timburchett? Dude lost his job! LOL!!!!
@cb_doge - DogeDesigner
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump thanked Elon Musk for his contributions to DOGE. The crowd erupted in cheers as the President introduced him. TRUMP: "Thank you Elon. He is working very hard. He didn’t need this. We appreciate it.” https://t.co/vGlZoT4JcV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Perhaps you've heard of it. It's headed by Elon Musk, thank you Elon. He's working very hard and he didn't need to do this. We appreciate it. Everybody here appreciates it, even those who don't want to admit it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Perhaps you've heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the Thank you, Elon. He's working very hard. He didn't need this.
He didn't need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Everybody here, even this side, appreciates it, I believe. They just don't want to admit that.
@Bubblebathgirl - Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸
MSNBC is now taunting Elon Musk after the latest SpaceX Starship launch. This is humiliating for legacy media, not Musk. https://t.co/Xh2tOkhpzd
@MonicaCrowley - Monica Crowley
🚨MUST WATCH: This @BretBaier interview with @elonmusk & the @DOGE team is OUTSTANDING 🔥🇺🇸 https://t.co/EJaolneGTN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doge aims to cut the federal deficit by $1 trillion by reducing waste and fraud, targeting a 15% spending reduction without affecting critical services. Astonishingly, billions are wasted routinely, like a billion-dollar charge for a simple online survey. Doge aims to cut $4 billion daily and publishes findings on doge.gov for transparency.
The team found a mine in Pennsylvania housing 400 million paper retirement documents, a process from the 1950s they plan to digitize for faster processing. Government IT costs $100 billion, maintaining systems over 50 years old. Social Security faces fraud, with 40% of calls being from fraudsters trying to steal benefits. Doge aims to protect legitimate recipients and ensure website stability.
There are 15-20 million potentially fraudulent Social Security numbers in the system. NIH has 27 centers with 700 IT systems that don't connect and 27 CIOs. The federal government has a one-way ratchet workforce, leading to duplicative functions like 40 communications offices at HHS. The IRS has 1,400 people provisioning laptops and cell phones, a task that could be done monthly by a fraction of that staff.
Treasury uses one main bank account for all outgoing payments, lacking basic financial controls and auditability. There's $500 billion in fraud annually. Small business loans were given to those under 11 and over 120 years old due to systems not cross-referencing data. Fraudsters exploit the "alive" status in Social Security to claim benefits for dead people. Doge views its work as a patriotic duty to ensure America's solvency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Disparate.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having us and doing this. I know there's a lot of interest in this. You know, first, let me start with you, Elon. What are the what are the budgetary savings goals, and and how much do you think you've achieved so far?
Speaker 2: Our our goal is to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars. So, from a nominal deficit of 2,000,000,000,000 to try to cut the deficit in half to 1,000,000,000,000, or looked at it in total federal spending to drop the federal spending from 7,000,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000,000. We wanna reduce the spending by eliminating waste and fraud, reduce the spending by fifth 15%, which seems really quite achievable. The government is not not efficient, and there's a lot of lot of waste and fraud. So, we feel confident that a 15% reduction can can be done without affecting any of of the critical government services.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk to all the guys
Speaker 2: making it better.
Speaker 1: And talk to all the guys here about the specifics. But for you, what's the most astonishing thing you found out in this process?
Speaker 2: The sheer amount of waste and fraud in the government. It is astonishing. It's mind blowing. Just we routinely encounter wastes of a billion dollars or more casually. You know, for example, like the simple the simple survey that was literally 10 question survey that you could do with SurveyMonkey cost about $10,000 was the government was being charged almost a billion dollars for that.
For just the survey? A billion dollars for for a simple online survey. Do you like the national park? And then there appeared to be no feedback loop for what would be done with that survey. So the survey would just go to nothing.
Speaker 1: It was like a time. You technically are a special government employee, and you're supposed to be a hundred and thirty days. Are you going to continue past that, or do you think that's the what you're gonna do? Or Well, I I
Speaker 2: think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that time frame.
Speaker 1: So in that time frame, a hundred and thirty days. And and the process is a report at some point, a hundred
Speaker 2: days or Not really a report. We we are cutting the waste and fraud in real time. So every day like that passes, our goal is to reduce the the waste and fraud by $4,000,000,000 a day, every day, seven days a week. And so far, we are succeeding.
Speaker 1: And we're gonna talk of the specifics, but there there obviously are Doge critics who are reading all kinds of stuff. Obviously, lawmakers on the other side of the aisle are attacking you. And he they characterize the approach as this, fire, ready, and then aim. And how do you approach that? How do you respond to that?
Speaker 2: Well, I I do agree that we actually wanna be careful in the cuts. So we want to measure twice, if not thrice, and cut once. And, actually, that is that is our approach. They may characterize it as shooting from the hip, but it is anything but that, which is not to say that we make we don't make mistakes. If we were to approach this with the standard of making no mistakes at all, that would be like saying you someone in baseball's gonna bat a thousand.
That's impossible. So when we do make mistakes, we correct them quickly, and we we move on.
Speaker 1: Some people say this shouldn't take a rocket scientist. Steve Davis, you are a rocket scientist. Used to be. Yeah. Know.
And now, essentially, you're the chief operating officer of Doge, day to day operations. Fair to say?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Part part of the Doge team.
Speaker 1: What so how did you end up here? What's the biggest challenge you see?
Speaker 3: The reason I'm here, which is probably for many, is that I think the goal is incredibly inspiring. I think most of the tax payers in the country would agree that in order to have the the country going bankrupt would be a very bad thing, and therefore, the country going not bankrupt is a good thing, that all of us are willing to kind of put our lives on hold in order to do. I think the thing that's special right now is we actually believe there's a chance to succeed, that there's an administration that's supportive, and a great cabinet and just a great group that will actually make success a possible outcome. And I think that's given the inspiring mission and given the, nonzero chance of success, it it was worth down.
Speaker 2: I just just like to sort of re upsize that point. The success of those is only possible with president Trump and with the outstanding cabinet that he selected. It would be impossible without the support of the president and the cabinet.
Speaker 1: But you're finding the money. I mean, it's big numbers. Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Like Elon said, the minimum impulse bid is often a billion dollars. So for example, the $830,000,000, which was the online survey, that's an enormous amount of money. That wouldn't have been found if the Doge team wasn't working with it, in that case, the Department of Interior. But then taking it one step further, Doge then publish publishes these things on our website for maximum transparency.
So now the general public it would have been impossible for the general public to have seen that. Now anyone can just log in to doge.gov anytime and see these payments as they're not yet in real time. They're close, but they'll probably be in real time within the next few weeks.
Speaker 1: But the process still involves congress. Right? At some level?
Speaker 2: We're trying to keep congress as informed as possible, but it it the law does say that money needs to be spent correctly. It should not be spent fraudulently or wastefully. It's not contrary to congress to avoid waste and fraud. It is consistent with the law and consistent with congress, and we've seen actually great support at least from the Republican side of the of the house and occasionally some Democrats too. You know, it's nice to see people cross the aisle once in a while.
But usually, when they attack Doge, they never attack any of the specifics. So they'll they'll say what we're doing is somehow unconstitutional or legal or whatever. We're like, well, which line of the cost savings do you disagree with? And they can't point to any. And we list them all on on doge.gov and and the doge handle on x.
And you'll see just outrageous things, one outrageous thing after another.
Speaker 1: Joe Gabbian, besides Elon, you're one of several billionaires here, cofounder of Airbnb, and you wanted to help out.
Speaker 4: I bumped into Anthony Dewan probably back in February, and they told me something about a a mine that was dealt with retirement. And they said that he needs somebody to help out to fix retirement in the government. I I love the challenge, I jumped on board. And it turns out there is actually a mine in Pennsylvania that houses every paper document for the retirement process in the government. Now picture this.
This this giant cave has 22,000 filing cabinets stacked 10 high to house 400,000,000 pieces of paper. It's a process that started in the nineteen fifties and largely hasn't changed in the last seventy years. And so as he dug into it, we found retirement cases that had so much paper, they had to fit it on a shipping pallet. So the process takes many months, and we're gonna make it just many days.
Speaker 1: Will it be digitized or how
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: So this will be an
Speaker 4: online digital process that will take just a few days at most. And I really think, you know, it's an injustice to civil servants who are subjected to these processes that are older than the age of half the people watching your show tonight. So we really believe that the government can have an Apple Store like experience, beautifully designed, great, easier experience, modern systems.
Speaker 1: Because right now, it's by hand.
Speaker 2: Yes. The the the retirement process is all by paper, literally with people carrying paper and manila envelopes in into this gigantic mine.
Speaker 1: So they can't retire more than a certain number every month?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: About about 8,000 a month.
Speaker 2: That that that's how we the reason we discovered it was we were saying like, well, let's encourage voluntary retire retirement. That's the most you could be that could they could do is 8,000 a month. And and even don't know what circumstances it can take six to nine months just to just to have your time and paperwork processed, and they often get the calculations wrong. So like, well, why would it take so long to retire? And they're like, well, because of the mind.
You're like, what do mean a mind? What's a mind got to do with retiring? And that's where we discovered that all the retirement stuff is done by still done by paper in a process that looks identical to what occurred in the nineteen fifties. Like, we took a snapshot of the mind when it first started in the fifties to today. It looks the same.
Speaker 1: It's amazing. So how long do you think it'll take take to turn over?
Speaker 4: We're working as fast as we can. Probably next couple of months, we'll have this this overhauled. And, you know, I really think, again, like, why are we subjecting our federal workers to processes that they actually have to go through a training just to retire from the government. There's a whole training program that people have to go through in order to retire. I I think we can do better for them.
Speaker 1: Aram Mogadasi, a Doge engineer. Yeah. You go into these places, one of the more than a dozen engineers, first people to go into the agencies and view the computer datasets. Tell me what you're finding. And for people who don't understand how that process works, explain it for them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'll say the first thing that got me really excited about Doge was learning basically, the state of government computers. By some estimates, government IT costs about a hundred billion dollars, and it's funding systems that are over 50 years old in the case of something like Social Security or the IRS. So really critical systems are are old. They cost a lot of money to maintain, and, they could be the the efforts to improve them are often very delayed.
So I I thought I'm a software engineer, that that maybe could make a difference here, and, that's that's really what inspired me at a high level.
Speaker 1: There's lot of history about Social Security and a lot of words about it from here's what Democrats have been saying about
Speaker 3: It's absurd that Elon Musk is trying to eliminate billions of dollars from Social Security.
Speaker 0: Elon Musk and president Trump have set their sights on cutting Social Security.
Speaker 1: Their goal is clear, destroy Social Security from within. You're in the building. I mean, you're in the computers. What's happening there? What are you doing?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: It doesn't line up with my experience on the ground. And I'll say the two improvements that we're trying to make to Social Security are helping people that legitimately get benefits, protect them from fraud that they experience every day on a routine basis, and also make the experience better. And I'll give you one one example is at Social Security, one of the first things we learned is that they get phone calls every day of people trying to change direct deposit information. So when you want to change your bank account, you can call Social Security. We learned 40% of the phone calls that they get are from fraudsters.
Speaker 1: Forty percent?
Speaker 0: That's right. Almost half.
Speaker 2: Yes. And and they they steal people's social security is what happens. Is they they call in, they say, they claim to be a retiree, then they they and they convince the post the Social Security person on the phone to change the where the where the money is flowing. It it actually goes to some fraudster. This is happening all day every day.
And and then and then somebody doesn't receive their Social Security is because of of all the the forward loopholes in the Social Security system.
Speaker 1: How do you reassure people that what you all are doing is not gonna affect their benefits?
Speaker 2: No. In fact, what what we're doing will help their benefits. Legitimate people, as a result of the work of Doge, will receive more social security, not less. Wanna emphasize that. As a result of the work of Doge, legitimate recipients of social security will receive more money, not less money.
Speaker 1: Alright.
Speaker 2: And and and and let the record show that I said this and the it will be proven out to be true. Let's let's check back on this in the future.
Speaker 1: So it's Washington Post. The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in ten days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled veterans from logging into their online accounts. Freaked people out. Is it is that gonna change?
Speaker 2: Yes. We're gonna make sure that the website stays online.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, but is it a result of going in there No. Or something you're doing?
Speaker 3: It's No. No. The the amount of issues that were the social security system are are enormous. As an example, there are over 15,000,000 people that are 20 that are marked as alive in the social security system.
Speaker 1: And that's an accurate figure.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Correct. 15,000,000.
Speaker 3: Correct. This has been something that's been identified as a problem. Again, preexisting problems since February at least from an IG report. So there are some great people working at the social security administration Social Security Administration that found this 02/2008 and nothing was done. And so fifteen to twenty million social security numbers that were clearly fraudulent were floating around that can be used only for bad intentions.
There'd be no way to use those for good intentions. And so what one of the things the Doge team is doing is carefully and very methodically looking at those and making sure that any fraudulent ones are eliminated.
Speaker 1: Brett Smith, working at HHS, and obviously another element is Medicare and Medicaid, NIH. What are you finding?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Well, I'd say there's a couple of things we're really committed to in our work at HHS. Number one, making sure we continue to have the best biomedical research in the world. And number two, making sure which president Trump has said over and over again that we 100% protect Medicare and Medicaid, but there's a lot of opportunity. So if I take NIH as an example, today, if you're an NIH researcher and you get a hundred dollar grant at your university, today, you get to spend 60 of that and your university spends 40 of that.
The policy that we're proposing to make is that you get to spend 85 of that and your university spends 15. So that's more money going directly to the scientists who are discovering new cures. Another example at NIH is today they have 27 different centers. They got created over time by congress and they're typically by disease state or body system. There's 700 different IT systems today at NIH.
Speaker 1: Seven hundred different IT systems.
Speaker 2: IT software systems. They don't connect.
Speaker 6: They can't speak to each other.
Speaker 1: So they don't talk to one.
Speaker 6: They have 27 different CIOs. And so when you think about making great medical discoveries, you have to connect the data.
Speaker 1: Time out. Time out. You said 27 different chief information officers?
Speaker 6: Correct. Correct.
Speaker 2: And most of them are nontechnical.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot there.
Speaker 6: There's a there's a lot of opportunity. It will make science better, not worse.
Speaker 2: And when I say that our job is tech support, I really mean it. Yeah. We have to fix the computers. If the computers can't talk to each other, you can't get research done. If the computers can't go stay online, people won't receive their social security.
So what we have here are a bunch of failing computer systems that are preventing people from receiving their their benefits, that are preventing people from preventing research from happening, that are, extremely vulnerable to fraud, and we're fixing it.
Speaker 1: And does that include AI? Does that include kind of changing the system overall? That's, I guess, what people are afraid of is they don't know
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: What this is all looking like, and is it gonna affect me in the long term?
Speaker 2: It's gonna affect them. It's gonna affect people very positively. So the the changes that we're doing here will ensure the solvency of the American government, of the American of of The United States Of America. This is what this is what we're trying to do is ensure that people do receive their benefits in the future. And you can only receive your benefits if the if the if the country is operating in a in a healthy and competent way.
Speaker 1: Anthony Armstrong, Doge, office of personnel management, Morgan Stanley banker, m and a guy. Yeah. You know money, and this is a lot of money sloshing around.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of money sloshing around. It's a lot of money sloshing out the door. And if you look at the federal government and the way the workforce works, it's really a one way ratchet over decades.
Speaker 1: You It's only going up.
Speaker 5: It's only going up. You never you never take it away. So that leaves you with duplicative functions. It leaves you with overstaffing, and it leaves you with functions in the wrong places. So a couple of examples, duplicative functions.
Brad mentioned 27 CIOs. If you had kept going with Brad, he probably he would talk about the communications office. I think you've got forty forty distinct communications offices in HHS. Yeah. 40?
Yeah. Yeah. And that's not unusual by by the way. Multiple offices like It's like anyone healthy. This is not about the employees there.
There's many many hardworking, well meaning people who who took jobs. These jobs were out there. They applied for them. They took them. They're doing what's there.
It's just that they're duplicating the effort of 40 offices. So you've got that. You've got over staffing. A good example of over staffing would be the IRS has got 1,400 people who are dedicated to provisioning laptops and and cell phones. So if you join the IRS, you get a laptop and a cell phone, you're provisioned.
So if each of those IRS officers or employees provisioned two employees per day, you could provision the entire IRS in a little more than a month. So 12 times a year
Speaker 2: 1,400 people whose only job it is to give out a laptop and a phone.
Speaker 5: Right. The the whole IRS could be handled once a month. So that doesn't that doesn't make any sense. And president Trump's been very clear. It's scalpel, not hatchet, and that's the way it's it's getting done.
And then once those decisions are made, there's a very heavy focus on being generous, being caring, being compassionate, and treating everyone with dignity and respect. And and if you look at how people have started to leave the government, it is largely through voluntary means. There's voluntary early retirement. There's voluntary separation payments. We put in place deferred resignation, the eight month severance program.
So there's a very heavy bias towards programs that are long dated, that are generous, that allow people to exit and go and get a new job in the private sector. And you've you've heard a lot of a lot of news about rifts about people getting fired. At at this moment in time, less than point one five not 1.5, less than point one five of the federal workforce has actually been given a riff notice.
Speaker 1: So So they've selected if they're a leader.
Speaker 2: It it is Basically, almost no one's gotten fired That's what we're saying.
Speaker 1: Tom Krausz, working at treasury, you are having access to the payment system, oversees all the outgoing payments. Essentially, payments were going places we didn't know where they were going. Right?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Unfortunately, that's the case, Brett. You know, as an ex CFO of a big public tech company, really what we're doing is we're applying public company standards to the federal government. And it is alarming how the financial operations and financial management is set up today. There is actually really only one bank account that's used to disperse all monies that go out of the federal government.
Speaker 1: Time out. One bank account.
Speaker 2: It's a big one.
Speaker 1: It's a
Speaker 3: big one. It's a
Speaker 7: big one. One. A couple weeks ago, had $800,000,000,000 in it, but it's the the treasury general account. So when you hear, you know, some of my colleagues here, what they're talking about in terms of the fraud, you have to ask, well, why is this allowed to happen at a financial level? Well, it's actually quite simple but alarming.
The treasury up until now, and thanks to president Trump, we're fixing this. In fact, there's an executive order that he just signed, the other day, which is protecting America's bank account because it really is the taxpayers' money. One, we're changing the culture. The culture has been not a lot of caring and not a lot of commitment to doing what's right relative to financial operations. There's a $500,000,000,000 of fraud every year.
There's hundreds of billion dollars of improper payments, and we can't pass an audit. The the consolidated financial report is produced by treasury, and we cannot pass it on. We have material weaknesses. What that means is that if I was a public company CFO, I would effectively be removed. I couldn't file financial statements.
I couldn't issue securities. Can't on. Can't it on.
Speaker 2: Right. The the federal government cannot pass an order. It's impossible. In fact, the the in order to pass an order, you need the information necessary to pass an order. You need to have the payment codes.
You need to have the payment explanation, and you need to have a person you can contact to understand why that payment was made. None of those things were mandatory Yeah. Until until just recently, just a few weeks ago. In fact, maybe last week?
Speaker 7: Yeah. We're serving 580 plus agencies. And up until very recently, effectively, they could say make the payment and treasury just sent it out as fast as possible. No verification. And so what we're doing is what any household would do.
But imagine you're a household, you have a bank account, everyone has an ATM card connected to that account, everyone has a checkbook connected to that account. It's not just your children. It's not just your parents. It's your in laws. It's your extended family.
And they all can go to the account and disperse funds. No questions asked. No justification. No verification.
Speaker 1: Tyler, Hasson, interior department, you're a form former oil company CEO. You're reviewing contracts before they're approved for funding. What what are you finding?
Speaker 8: Well, Elon and Steve kinda stole my thunder a little bit, but I actually found that customer service survey contract. I actually have an example of one right here. I could have done this in high school. And I I found it
Speaker 2: It's that bad.
Speaker 8: I found it on the weekends because under the Biden administration, there was no departmental oversight within the Department of Interior whatsoever. None. We are now reviewing every single contract, every single grant. And when things come to my attention that don't make sense, I'm bringing him to secretary Bergam, and he has been fantastic. He's he's a businessman.
He's very supportive of Doge. It's been wonderful
Speaker 2: to work with Is
Speaker 1: the battle between government of decades and decades of buildup and business, which you guys are, is that like a train hitting each other? I mean, it it seems like it's pretty disruptive. Well, this is a revolution.
Speaker 2: And I think it it might be the might be the biggest revolution in government since the original revolution. But at the end of the day, America is gonna be in much better shape. America will be solvent. The critical programs that people depend upon will work, and it's gonna be a fantastic future. And but are we gonna get a lot of complaints along the way?
Absolutely. You know, one the things I learned at PayPal was the you know, who complains the loudest and the with the the most amount of fake righteous indignation? The fraudsters. That's it's a tell. You know these NGOs that are crazy?
Like the the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams NGO that basically didn't exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government. She has why. And there are many such cases like that.
Speaker 1: I think that most people, common sense wise, would say the fraud's gotta end.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They're concerned about the 94 year old mother who skips a check or somehow doesn't get what she's supposed to get.
Speaker 2: Right. And what we're trying to say is actually the that that the 94 year old grandmother is is actually, as a result of Joe Doge's work, going to get her check. She's not going to be robbed by fraudsters like she's getting robbed today. And the solvency of the of the federal government will ensure that she continues to receive those social security checks that Medicare continues to work without which we're all doomed. And the reason we're doing this is because if if we don't do it, America's gonna go insolvent.
We're gonna go bankrupt, and nobody's gonna get anything.
Speaker 1: Why are you guys all doing it? I mean, you can pipe up, but it you don't have to be here. Right? I mean, you don't you don't have to be doing this.
Speaker 7: I have four blessed with four beautiful children, my wife and I, But we have a real fiscal crisis, and and this is not sustainable. And what's worse, back to my children and everyone else's children, is we are burdening them with that debt, and it's only gonna grow.
Speaker 1: Steve, there's not a lot of hierarchy here. You guys are kind of all approaching it in different, you know, silos, but with the same kind of goal. Right? I mean,
Speaker 3: this is really Silicon Valley private sector colliding with government. Yeah. Exactly. And we're headed in a bad path, but then the chance of success exists. And just the one that just is in my head right now, which is a fairly mundane one, but I think is very illustrative is credit cards.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 3: There are in the in the federal government around 4,600,000 credit cards for around 2.3 to 2,400,000 employees. This doesn't make sense. Right. And so one of the things all of the teams have have worked on is we've worked with the agencies and said, do you need all of these credit cards? Are they being used?
Can you tell us physically where they are? I hope they're getting frequent flyers. Actually, on a different note, the rewards program the federal government has is actually not very good. It costs. That's a whole other It's a negotiation.
Right. Yeah. Exactly. But so far, the teams have worked together, and they've reduced it from 4,600,000.0 to to 4,300,000.0. So So we're taking we're taking it easy.
Speaker 7: Yeah. But but
Speaker 2: clearly, there should not be, you know, more there should be more credit cards than there are people.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Joe, middle level employees, are they seeing a benefit to being empowered by taking out bureaucracy? I mean
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I mean, I think what you're seeing is taking the best Silicon Valley in the business world and bringing it into the government. We're bringing the best practices and the best methodologies. And people are inspired, right, especially on the retirement process, which I can speak to. They've been trying to modernize and get off of paper since early two thousands, very unsuccessfully.
Every attempt has gone over budget, and been canceled, because it hasn't been successful. And so, you know, I showed up and I feel like I'm here because it's an interesting problem. We can use design to solve it and good engineering and really create a better experience for everybody.
Speaker 2: They were we're talking about elementary financial controls that are necessary for any company to function. So, like, if if these can if if if the federal government if if if a commercial company operated the way the federal government does, then it would be go immediately go bankrupt. It would be delisted. The officers would be arrested. And the changes we're putting in place will enable the federal government to pass an audit.
It will enable enable taxpayers to know where the money is going and know that their hard earned tax tax dollars are being spent well. But the ways that the government is defrauded is that the computer systems don't talk to each other. So if the computer systems systems don't talk to each other, then it you you can you can exploit that gap and and forces exploit that exploit that gap, take advantage. If, for example, there were over $300,000,000 of small business administration loans that has been given out to people under the age of 11.
Speaker 3: Well, actually, to add to this, 300,000,000 under the age of 11 and over three hundred million to over the age of 120.
Speaker 1: Definitely Small business loans.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: The the oldest American is a hundred and 14. So it's safe to say if their age is 15 or above, they're they're fake, or they should be in the Guinness Guinness Book of World Records. And we we should not be giving out loans to babies. So the youngest recipient of a small business administration loan is a nine month year old, which is a very very cautious baby we're talking about here. So obviously, it was just fraudulent.
And what they and and they do terrible things. They actually will see that a a kid's been born. They will steal that kid's social security number and then take out a loan, and and leave that kid with a with a bad credit rating. There was literally a baby. The terrible things are being done is what we're saying.
And how? We're stopping these terrible things.
Speaker 1: And you can stop it?
Speaker 4: I mean Well, we are stopping
Speaker 2: The reason this is happening
Speaker 5: is because the the two systems are not talking to each other.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: Right? And so you don't know at the small business administration that you're giving a loan to a nine month old, which happened in one case, because you're not cross referencing that with the social security administration data that has birth dates. So that very, very simple fix Yes. Eliminates tremendous fraud. And and that there are multiple systems across the government where the systems are not speaking with one another.
And if you just solve that simple problem, you would solve a huge amount of fraud.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised? One of ways
Speaker 2: that like, one one of the the key tricks that the fraudsters pull is that they will use the fact that someone is mocked as live and as as sort of just that that Social Security number is mocked as live in Social Security, and then then get disability and unemployment insurance for a dead person. Because the databases don't talk to each other, all they got was from Social Security is like, is this person alive? Yes. They're not they're not alive. It's falsely marked person is falsely marked as alive in social security, but they didn't but but that first a fraudster can now get unemployment and disability for from a dead person.
This is happening all the time at scale.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised at some of the legal efforts and some of the judges that have weighed in? There's about eight or 10 now of these cases that are at least temporary holds. They're being challenged by the DOJ. Right. Are you surprised by that pushback?
Speaker 2: Well, it's the the DC circuit is notorious for having a very far left bias. And when you look at the people close to some of these judges, who who who are where are they working? Are they working at these NGOs? Are they getting the the other ones getting this money? Does that seem like system that lacks corruption?
It sounds like corruption to me.
Speaker 1: Last thing. Do you guys all see this as a patriotic duty? I mean, is that really what this is about? It's essential. Very
Speaker 8: much. I do. A %. I I was running five businesses in Houston, and and I left that. I left great people to do this.
And my wonderful wife said, go for it. And here I am. But I I feel like this is me giving back to the country.
Speaker 2: If if we don't do this, we're sunk. The ship unless unless this exercise is successful, the ship of America will sink. That's why we're doing it.
Speaker 1: Well, gentlemen, I really appreciate the time today. And hopefully, it took some of the myth and mystery out of Doge and what's happening behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
@america - America
Bret Baier’s full interview with Elon Musk and @DOGE: https://t.co/7KmRs8UJq2
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doge aims to cut the deficit by $1 trillion by reducing waste and fraud, targeting a 15% reduction in federal spending. Astonishingly, billions are wasted casually, like a billion-dollar charge for a simple online survey. Doge aims to cut waste by $4 billion daily and publishes findings on doge.gov for transparency.
A key project involves digitizing the government retirement process, currently a paper-based system housed in a mine with 400 million documents. The goal is to transform it into an online system, processing retirements in days instead of months.
Doge is also addressing IT issues, including outdated systems and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Social Security is a focus, aiming to prevent fraud and improve service, after discovering 40% of calls to change direct deposit information are fraudulent. The team is working to ensure the solvency of the American government.
The federal government has 4.6 million credit cards for 2.3 million employees, and the team is working to reduce the number of cards. There is only one bank account used to disperse all monies that go out of the federal government. The team is working to apply public company standards to the federal government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Disparate.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having us and doing this. I know there's a lot of interest in this. You know, first, let me start with you, Elon. What are the what are the budgetary savings goals, and and how much do you think you've achieved so far?
Speaker 2: Our our goal is to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars. So, from a nominal deficit of 2,000,000,000,000 to try to cut the deficit in half to 1,000,000,000,000, or looked at it in total federal spending to drop the federal spending from 7,000,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000,000. We wanna reduce the spending by eliminating waste and fraud, reduce the spending by fifth 15%, which seems really quite achievable. The government is not not efficient, and there's a lot of lot of waste and fraud. So, we feel confident that a 15% reduction can can be done without affecting any of of the critical government services.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk to all the guys
Speaker 2: making it better.
Speaker 1: And talk to all the guys here about the specifics. But for you, what's the most astonishing thing you found out in this process?
Speaker 2: The sheer amount of waste and fraud in the government. It is astonishing. It's mind blowing. Just we routinely encounter wastes of a billion dollars or more casually. You know, for example, like the simple the simple survey that was literally 10 question survey that you could do with SurveyMonkey cost about $10,000 was the government was being charged almost a billion dollars for that.
For just the survey? A billion dollars for for a simple online survey. Do you like the national park? And then there appeared to be no feedback loop for what would be done with that survey. So the survey would just go to nothing.
Speaker 1: It was like a time. You technically are a special government employee, and you're supposed to be a hundred and thirty days. Are you going to continue past that, or do you think that's the what you're gonna do? Or Well, I I
Speaker 2: think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that time frame.
Speaker 1: So in that time frame, a hundred and days. And and the process is a report at some point, a hundred
Speaker 2: days or Not really a report. We we are cutting the waste and fraud in real time. So every day like that passes, our goal is to reduce the the waste and fraud by $4,000,000,000 a day, every day, seven days a week. And so far, we are succeeding.
Speaker 1: And we're gonna talk of the specifics, but there there obviously are Doge critics who are reading all kinds of stuff. Obviously, lawmakers on the other side of the aisle are attacking you. And he they characterize the approach as this, fire, ready, and then aim. And how do you approach that? How do you respond to that?
Speaker 2: Well, I I do agree that we actually wanna be careful in the cuts. So we want to measure twice, if not thrice, and cut once. And, actually, that is that is our approach. They may characterize it as shooting from the hip, but it is anything but that, which is not to say that we make we don't make mistakes. If we were to approach this with the standard of making no mistakes at all, that would be like saying you someone in baseball's gonna bat a thousand.
That's impossible. So when we do make mistakes, we correct them quickly, and we we move on.
Speaker 1: Some people say this shouldn't take a rocket scientist. Steve Davis, you are a rocket scientist. Used to be. Yeah. Know.
And now, essentially, you're the chief operating officer of Doge, day to day operations. Fair to say?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Part part of the Doge team.
Speaker 1: What so how did you end up here? What's the biggest challenge you see?
Speaker 3: The reason I'm here, which is probably for many, is that I think the goal is incredibly inspiring. I think most of the tax payers in the country would agree that in order to have the the country going bankrupt would be a very bad thing, and therefore, the country going not bankrupt is a good thing, that all of us are willing to kind of put our lives on hold in order to do. I think the thing that's special right now is we actually believe there's a chance to succeed, that there's an administration that's supportive, and a great cabinet and just a great group that will actually make success a possible outcome. And I think that's given the inspiring mission and given the, nonzero chance of success, it it was worth down.
Speaker 2: I just just like to sort of re upsize that point. The success of those is only possible with president Trump and with the outstanding cabinet that he selected. It would be impossible without the support of the president and the cabinet.
Speaker 1: But you're finding the money. I mean, it's big numbers. Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Like Elon said, the minimum impulse bid is often a billion dollars. So for example, the $830,000,000, which was the online survey, that's an enormous amount of money. That wouldn't have been found if the Doge team wasn't working with it, in that case, the Department of Interior. But then taking it one step further, Doge then publish publishes these things on our website for maximum transparency.
So now the general public it would have been impossible for the general public to have seen that. Now anyone can just log in to doge.gov anytime and see these payments as they're not yet in real time. They're close, but they'll probably be in real time within the next few weeks.
Speaker 1: But the process still involves congress. Right? At some level?
Speaker 2: We're trying to keep congress as informed as possible, but it it the law does say that money needs to be spent correctly. It should not be spent fraudulently or wastefully. It's not contrary to congress to avoid waste and fraud. It is consistent with the law and consistent with congress, and we've seen actually great support at least from the Republican side of the of the house and occasionally some Democrats too. You know, it's nice to see people cross the aisle once in a while.
But usually, when they attack Doge, they never attack any of the specifics. So they'll they'll say what we're doing is somehow unconstitutional or legal or whatever. We're like, well, which line of the cost savings do you disagree with? And they can't point to any. And we list them all on on doge.gov and and the doge handle on x.
And you'll see just outrageous things, one outrageous thing after another.
Speaker 1: Joe Gabbian, besides Elon, you're one of several billionaires here, cofounder of Airbnb, and you wanted to help out.
Speaker 4: I bumped into Anthony Dewan probably back in February, and they told me something about a a mine that was dealt with retirement. And they said that he needs somebody to help out to fix retirement in the government. I I love the challenge, I jumped on board. And it turns out there is actually a mine in Pennsylvania that houses every paper document for the retirement process in the government. Now picture this.
This this giant cave has 22,000 filing cabinets stacked 10 high to house 400,000,000 pieces of paper. It's a process that started in the nineteen fifties and largely hasn't changed in the last seventy years. And so as he dug into it, we found retirement cases that had so much paper, they had to fit it on a shipping pallet. So the process takes many months, and we're gonna make it just many days.
Speaker 1: Will it be digitized or how
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: So this will be an
Speaker 4: online digital process that will take just a few days at most. And I really think, you know, it's an injustice to civil servants who are subjected to these processes that are older than the age of half the people watching your show tonight. So we really believe that the government can have an Apple Store like experience, beautifully designed, great, easier experience, modern systems.
Speaker 1: Because right now, it's by hand.
Speaker 2: Yes. The the the retirement process is all by paper, literally with people carrying paper and manila envelopes in into this gigantic mine.
Speaker 1: So they can't retire more than a certain number every month?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: About about 8,000 a month.
Speaker 2: That that that's how we the reason we discovered it was we were saying like, well, let's encourage voluntary retire retirement. That's the most you could be that could they could do is 8,000 a month. And and even don't know what circumstances it can take six to nine months just to just to have your time and paperwork processed, and they often get the calculations wrong. So like, well, why would it take so long to retire? And they're like, well, because of the mind.
You're like, what do mean a mind? What's a mind got to do with retiring? And that's where we discovered that all the retirement stuff is done by still done by paper in a process that looks identical to what occurred in the nineteen fifties. Like, we took a snapshot of the mind when it first started in the fifties to today. It looks the same.
Speaker 1: It's amazing. So how long do you think it'll take take to turn over?
Speaker 4: We're working as fast as we can. Probably next couple of months, we'll have this this overhauled. And, you know, I really think, again, like, why are we subjecting our federal workers to processes that they actually have to go through a training just to retire from the government. There's a whole training program that people have to go through in order to retire. I I think we can do better for them.
Speaker 1: Aram Mogadasi, a Doge engineer. Yeah. You go into these places, one of the more than a dozen engineers, first people to go into the agencies and view the computer datasets. Tell me what you're finding. And for people who don't understand how that process works, explain it for them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'll say the first thing that got me really excited about Doge was learning basically, the state of government computers. By some estimates, government IT costs about a hundred billion dollars, and it's funding systems that are over 50 years old in the case of something like Social Security or the IRS. So really critical systems are are old. They cost a lot of money to maintain, and, they could be the the efforts to improve them are often very delayed.
So I I thought I'm a software engineer, that that maybe could make a difference here, and, that's that's really what inspired me at a high level.
Speaker 1: There's lot of history about Social Security and a lot of words about it from here's what Democrats have been saying about
Speaker 3: It's absurd that Elon Musk is trying to eliminate billions of dollars from Social Security.
Speaker 0: Elon Musk and president Trump have set their sights on cutting Social Security.
Speaker 1: Their goal is clear, destroy Social Security from within. You're in the building. I mean, you're in the computers. What's happening there? What are you doing?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: It doesn't line up with my experience on the ground. And I'll say the two improvements that we're trying to make to Social Security are helping people that legitimately get benefits, protect them from fraud that they experience every day on a routine basis, and also make the experience better. And I'll give you one one example is at Social Security, one of the first things we learned is that they get phone calls every day of people trying to change direct deposit information. So when you want to change your bank account, you can call Social Security. We learned 40% of the phone calls that they get are from fraudsters.
Speaker 1: Forty percent?
Speaker 0: That's right. Almost half.
Speaker 2: Yes. And and they they steal people's social security is what happens. Is they they call in, they say, they claim to be a retiree, then they they and they convince the post the Social Security person on the phone to change the where the where the money is flowing. It it actually goes to some fraudster. This is happening all day every day.
And and then and then somebody doesn't receive their Social Security is because of of all the the forward loopholes in the Social Security system.
Speaker 1: How do you reassure people that what you all are doing is not gonna affect their benefits?
Speaker 2: No. In fact, what what we're doing will help their benefits. Legitimate people, as a result of the work of Doge, will receive more social security, not less. Wanna emphasize that. As a result of the work of Doge, legitimate recipients of social security will receive more money, not less money.
Speaker 1: Alright.
Speaker 2: And and and and let the record show that I said this and the it will be proven out to be true. Let's let's check back on this in the future.
Speaker 1: So it's Washington Post. The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in ten days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled veterans from logging into their online accounts. Freaked people out. Is it is that gonna change?
Speaker 2: Yes. We're gonna make sure that the website stays online.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, but is it a result of going in there No. Or something you're doing?
Speaker 3: It's No. No. The the amount of issues that were the social security system are are enormous. As an example, there are over 15,000,000 people that are 20 that are marked as alive in the social security system.
Speaker 1: And that's an accurate figure.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Correct. 15,000,000.
Speaker 3: Correct. This has been something that's been identified as a problem. Again, preexisting problems since February at least from an IG report. So there are some great people working at the social security administration Social Security Administration that found this 02/2008 and nothing was done. And so 15 to 20,000,000 social security numbers that were clearly fraudulent were floating around that can be used only for bad intentions.
There'd be no way to use those for good intentions. And so what one of the things the Doge team is doing is carefully and very methodically looking at those and making sure that any fraudulent ones are eliminated.
Speaker 1: Brett Smith, working at HHS, and obviously another element is Medicare and Medicaid, NIH. What are you finding?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Well, I'd say there's a couple of things we're really committed to in our work at HHS. Number one, making sure we continue to have the best biomedical research in the world. And number two, making sure which president Trump has said over and over again that we 100% protect Medicare and Medicaid, but there's a lot of opportunity. So if I take NIH as an example, today, if you're an NIH researcher and you get a hundred dollar grant at your university, today, you get to spend 60 of that and your university spends 40 of that.
The policy that we're proposing to make is that you get to spend 85 of that and your university spends 15. So that's more money going directly to the scientists who are discovering new cures. Another example at NIH is today they have 27 different centers. They got created over time by congress and they're typically by disease state or body system. There's 700 different IT systems today at NIH.
Speaker 1: Seven hundred different IT systems.
Speaker 2: IT software systems. They don't connect.
Speaker 6: They can't speak to each other.
Speaker 1: So they don't talk to one.
Speaker 6: They have 27 different CIOs. And so when you think about making great medical discoveries, you have to connect the data.
Speaker 1: Time out. Time out. You said 27 different chief information officers?
Speaker 6: Correct. Correct.
Speaker 2: And most of them are nontechnical.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot there.
Speaker 6: There's a there's a lot of opportunity. It will make science better, not worse.
Speaker 2: And when I say that our job is tech support, I really mean it. Yeah. We have to fix the computers. If the computers can't talk to each other, you can't get research done. If the computers can't go stay online, people won't receive their social security.
So what we have here are a bunch of failing computer systems that are preventing people from receiving their their benefits, that are preventing people from preventing research from happening, that are, extremely vulnerable to fraud, and we're fixing it.
Speaker 1: And does that include AI? Does that include kind of changing the system overall? That's, I guess, what people are afraid of is they don't know
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: What this is all looking like, and is it gonna affect me in the long term?
Speaker 2: It's gonna affect them. It's gonna affect people very positively. So the the changes that we're doing here will ensure the solvency of the American government, of the American of of The United States Of America. This is what this is what we're trying to do is ensure that people do receive their benefits in the future. And you can only receive your benefits if the if the if the country is operating in a in a healthy and competent way.
Speaker 1: Anthony Armstrong, Doge, office of personnel management, Morgan Stanley banker, m and a guy. Yeah. You know money, and this is a lot of money sloshing around.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of money sloshing around. It's a lot of money sloshing out the door. And if you look at the federal government and the way the workforce works, it's really a one way ratchet over decades.
Speaker 1: You It's only going up.
Speaker 5: It's only going up. You never you never take it away. So that leaves you with duplicative functions. It leaves you with overstaffing, and it leaves you with functions in the wrong places. So a couple of examples, duplicative functions.
Brad mentioned 27 CIOs. If you had kept going with Brad, he probably he would talk about the communications office. I think you've got forty forty distinct communications offices in HHS. Yeah. 40?
Yeah. Yeah. And that's not unusual by by the way. Multiple offices like It's like anyone healthy. This is not about the employees there.
There's many many hardworking, well meaning people who who took jobs. These jobs were out there. They applied for them. They took them. They're doing what's there.
It's just that they're duplicating the effort of 40 offices. So you've got that. You've got over staffing. A good example of over staffing would be the IRS has got 1,400 people who are dedicated to provisioning laptops and and cell phones. So if you join the IRS, you get a laptop and a cell phone, you're provisioned.
So if each of those IRS officers or employees provisioned two employees per day, you could provision the entire IRS in a little more than a month. So 12 times a year
Speaker 2: 1,400 people whose only job it is to give out a laptop and a phone.
Speaker 5: Right. The the whole IRS could be handled once a month. So that doesn't that doesn't make any sense. And president Trump's been very clear. It's scalpel, not hatchet, and that's the way it's it's getting done.
And then once those decisions are made, there's a very heavy focus on being generous, being caring, being compassionate, and treating everyone with dignity and respect. And and if you look at how people have started to leave the government, it is largely through voluntary means. There's voluntary early retirement. There's voluntary separation payments. We put in place deferred resignation, the eight month severance program.
So there's a very heavy bias towards programs that are long dated, that are generous, that allow people to exit and go and get a new job in the private sector. And you've you've heard a lot of a lot of news about rifts about people getting fired. At at this moment in time, less than point one five not 1.5, less than point one five of the federal workforce has actually been given a riff notice.
Speaker 1: So So they've selected if they're a leader.
Speaker 2: It it is Basically, almost no one's gotten fired That's what we're saying.
Speaker 1: Tom Krausz, working at treasury, you are having access to the payment system, oversees all the outgoing payments. Essentially, payments were going places we didn't know where they were going. Right?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Unfortunately, that's the case, Brett. You know, as an ex CFO of a big public tech company, really what we're doing is we're applying public company standards to the federal government. And it is alarming how the financial operations and financial management is set up today. There is actually really only one bank account that's used to disperse all monies that go out of the federal government.
Speaker 1: Time out. One bank account.
Speaker 2: It's a big one.
Speaker 1: It's a
Speaker 3: big one. It's a
Speaker 7: big one. One. A couple weeks ago, had $800,000,000,000 in it, but it's the the treasury general account. So when you hear, you know, some of my colleagues here, what they're talking about in terms of the fraud, you have to ask, well, why is this allowed to happen at a financial level? Well, it's actually quite simple but alarming.
The treasury up until now, and thanks to president Trump, we're fixing this. In fact, there's an executive order that he just signed, the other day, which is protecting America's bank account because it really is the taxpayers' money. One, we're changing the culture. The culture has been not a lot of caring and not a lot of commitment to doing what's right relative to financial operations. There's a $500,000,000,000 of fraud every year.
There's hundreds of billion dollars of improper payments, and we can't pass an audit. The the consolidated financial report is produced by treasury, and we cannot pass it on. We have material weaknesses. What that means is that if I was a public company CFO, I would effectively be removed. I couldn't file financial statements.
I couldn't issue securities. Can't on. Can't it on.
Speaker 2: Right. The the federal government cannot pass an order. It's impossible. In fact, the the in order to pass an order, you need the information necessary to pass an order. You need to have the payment codes.
You need to have the payment explanation, and you need to have a person you can contact to understand why that payment was made. None of those things were mandatory Yeah. Until until just recently, just a few weeks ago. In fact, maybe last week?
Speaker 7: Yeah. We're serving 580 plus agencies. And up until very recently, effectively, they could say make the payment and treasury just sent it out as fast as possible. No verification. And so what we're doing is what any household would do.
But imagine you're a household, you have a bank account, everyone has an ATM card connected to that account, everyone has a checkbook connected to that account. It's not just your children. It's not just your parents. It's your in laws. It's your extended family.
And they all can go to the account and disperse funds. No questions asked. No justification. No verification.
Speaker 1: Tyler, Hasson, interior department, you're a form former oil company CEO. You're reviewing contracts before they're approved for funding. What what are you finding?
Speaker 8: Well, Elon and Steve kinda stole my thunder a little bit, but I actually found that customer service survey contract. I actually have an example of one right here. I could have done this in high school. And I I found it
Speaker 2: It's that bad.
Speaker 8: I found it on the weekends because under the Biden administration, there was no departmental oversight within the Department of Interior whatsoever. None. We are now reviewing every single contract, every single grant. And when things come to my attention that don't make sense, I'm bringing him to secretary Bergam, and he has been fantastic. He's he's a businessman.
He's very supportive of Doge. It's been wonderful
Speaker 2: to work with Is
Speaker 1: the battle between government of decades and decades of buildup and business, which you guys are, is that like a train hitting each other? I mean, it it seems like it's pretty disruptive. Well, this is a revolution.
Speaker 2: And I think it it might be the might be the biggest revolution in government since the original revolution. But at the end of the day, America is gonna be in much better shape. America will be solvent. The critical programs that people depend upon will work, and it's gonna be a fantastic future. And but are we gonna get a lot of complaints along the way?
Absolutely. You know, one the things I learned at PayPal was the you know, who complains the loudest and the with the the most amount of fake righteous indignation? The fraudsters. That's it's a tell. You know these NGOs that are crazy?
Like the the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams NGO that basically didn't exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government. She has why. And there are many such cases like that.
Speaker 1: I think that most people, common sense wise, would say the fraud's gotta end.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They're concerned about the 94 year old mother who skips a check or somehow doesn't get what she's supposed to get.
Speaker 2: Right. And what we're trying to say is actually the that that the 94 year old grandmother is is actually, as a result of Joe Doge's work, going to get her check. She's not going to be robbed by fraudsters like she's getting robbed today. And the solvency of the of the federal government will ensure that she continues to receive those social security checks that Medicare continues to work without which we're all doomed. And the reason we're doing this is because if if we don't do it, America's gonna go insolvent.
We're gonna go bankrupt, and nobody's gonna get anything.
Speaker 1: Why are you guys all doing it? I mean, you can pipe up, but it you don't have to be here. Right? I mean, you don't you don't have to be doing this.
Speaker 7: I have four blessed with four beautiful children, my wife and I, But we have a real fiscal crisis, and and this is not sustainable. And what's worse, back to my children and everyone else's children, is we are burdening them with that debt, and it's only gonna grow.
Speaker 1: Steve, there's not a lot of hierarchy here. You guys are kind of all approaching it in different, you know, silos, but with the same kind of goal. Right? I mean,
Speaker 3: this is really Silicon Valley private sector colliding with government. Yeah. Exactly. And we're headed in a bad path, but then the chance of success exists. And just the one that just is in my head right now, which is a fairly mundane one, but I think is very illustrative is credit cards.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 3: There are in the in the federal government around 4,600,000 credit cards for around 2.3 to 2,400,000 employees. This doesn't make sense. Right. And so one of the things all of the teams have have worked on is we've worked with the agencies and said, do you need all of these credit cards? Are they being used?
Can you tell us physically where they are? I hope they're getting frequent flyers. Actually, on a different note, the rewards program the federal government has is actually not very good. It costs. That's a whole other It's a negotiation.
Right. Yeah. Exactly. But so far, the teams have worked together, and they've reduced it from 4,600,000.0 to to 4,300,000.0. So So we're taking we're taking it easy.
Speaker 7: Yeah. But but
Speaker 2: clearly, there should not be, you know, more there should be more credit cards than there are people.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Joe, middle level employees, are they seeing a benefit to being empowered by taking out bureaucracy? I mean
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I mean, I think what you're seeing is taking the best Silicon Valley in the business world and bringing it into the government. We're bringing the best practices and the best methodologies. And people are inspired, right, especially on the retirement process, which I can speak to. They've been trying to modernize and get off of paper since early two thousands, very unsuccessfully.
Every attempt has gone over budget, and been canceled, because it hasn't been successful. And so, you know, I showed up and I feel like I'm here because it's an interesting problem. We can use design to solve it and good engineering and really create a better experience for everybody.
Speaker 2: They were we're talking about elementary financial controls that are necessary for any company to function. So, like, if if these can if if if the federal government if if if a commercial company operated the way the federal government does, then it would be go immediately go bankrupt. It would be delisted. The officers would be arrested. And the changes we're putting in place will enable the federal government to pass an audit.
It will enable enable taxpayers to know where the money is going and know that their hard earned tax tax dollars are being spent well. But the ways that the government is defrauded is that the computer systems don't talk to each other. So if the computer systems systems don't talk to each other, then it you you can you can exploit that gap and and forces exploit that exploit that gap, take advantage. If, for example, there were over $300,000,000 of small business administration loans that has been given out to people under the age of 11.
Speaker 3: Well, actually, to add to this, 300,000,000 under the age of 11 and over three hundred million to over the age of 120.
Speaker 1: Definitely Small business loans.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: The the oldest American is a hundred and 14. So it's safe to say if their age is 15 or above, they're they're fake, or they should be in the Guinness Guinness Book of World Records. And we we should not be giving out loans to babies. So the youngest recipient of a small business administration loan is a nine month year old, which is a very very cautious baby we're talking about here. So obviously, it was just fraudulent.
And what they and and they do terrible things. They actually will see that a a kid's been born. They will steal that kid's social security number and then take out a loan, and and leave that kid with a with a bad credit rating. There was literally a baby. The terrible things are being done is what we're saying.
And how? We're stopping these terrible things.
Speaker 1: And you can stop it?
Speaker 4: I mean Well, we are stopping
Speaker 2: The reason this is happening
Speaker 5: is because the the two systems are not talking to each other.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: Right? And so you don't know at the small business administration that you're giving a loan to a nine month old, which happened in one case, because you're not cross referencing that with the social security administration data that has birth dates. So that very, very simple fix Yes. Eliminates tremendous fraud. And and that there are multiple systems across the government where the systems are not speaking with one another.
And if you just solve that simple problem, you would solve a huge amount of fraud.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised? One of ways
Speaker 2: that like, one one of the the key tricks that the fraudsters pull is that they will use the fact that someone is mocked as live and as as sort of just that that Social Security number is mocked as live in Social Security, and then then get disability and unemployment insurance for a dead person. Because the databases don't talk to each other, all they got was from Social Security is like, is this person alive? Yes. They're not they're not alive. It's falsely marked person is falsely marked as alive in social security, but they didn't but but that first a fraudster can now get unemployment and disability for from a dead person.
This is happening all the time at scale.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised at some of the legal efforts and some of the judges that have weighed in? There's about eight or 10 now of these cases that are at least temporary holds. They're being challenged by the DOJ. Right. Are you surprised by that pushback?
Speaker 2: Well, it's the the DC circuit is notorious for having a very far left bias. And when you look at the people close to some of these judges, who who who are where are they working? Are they working at these NGOs? Are they getting the the other ones getting this money? Does that seem like system that lacks corruption?
It sounds like corruption to me.
Speaker 1: Last thing. Do you guys all see this as a patriotic duty? I mean, is that really what this is about? It's essential. Very
Speaker 8: much. I do. A %. I I was running five businesses in Houston, and and I left that. I left great people to do this.
And my wonderful wife said, go for it. And here I am. But I I feel like this is me giving back to the country.
Speaker 2: If if we don't do this, we're sunk. The ship unless unless this exercise is successful, the ship of America will sink. That's why we're doing it.
Speaker 1: Well, gentlemen, I really appreciate the time today. And hopefully, it took some of the myth and mystery out of Doge and what's happening behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
🇺🇸🇺🇸
@RWTNews - 🇺🇸🇺🇸Red White and True News🇺🇸🇺🇸
Jesse Watters sits down with the DOGE team to talk about what they are finding. In this part we meet "Big Balls" and find out where he got that name. (Part 3) https://t.co/yg2CipXs1j
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss identifying and addressing fraud and waste in government payment systems, where there is often no clear accounting of where the money goes. One speaker uses "Big Balls" as a LinkedIn username to signal risk-taking.
Team members have faced hostility, including email threats and effigy hangings, for their work. One member dropped out of Harvard to contribute, citing the greater impact of this work. They emphasize their intense work ethic and dedication.
They also highlight the collaboration with government employees who are eager for reform and express gratitude to those helping reduce waste and fraud. They stress that many government employees are dedicated and want to improve systems, and they are providing the tools and collaboration to empower them. Conflict is the exception, not the rule.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We finally ask the one question on our mind. Who's Big Balls?
Speaker 1: It's me. That should be obvious. Why do they call you Big Balls?
Speaker 2: I just said it as my LinkedIn username. Okay. Well, people on LinkedIn take themselves, like, super seriously, and they're pretty adverse to risk. And I was like, well, I wanna be neither of those things. So I just I said it and then, honestly, I didn't even think anyone would notice.
Speaker 1: Yeah. When you clicking this so cringe. What does BigBalls do?
Speaker 2: Right now, I'm working on some payment computer stuff. So one of our initiatives is to root out fraud and waste. And to do that, we started looking at the payment computers. And as mentioned earlier, like, there is no accounting of what payments actually go to in the payment computer. So, like, you look at a specific line item, like $20,000,000, and you're like, okay.
Well, what is this money going to? And for the majority of payment systems, it's like, well, we don't really know.
Speaker 1: And Yeah. They're like, what? That would be the response.
Speaker 0: Is this the most basic responses?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. That's the most common response.
Speaker 0: What do you say when people just say, I don't know. Well, it's
Speaker 2: a huge cause for concern because, like, the upstream thing, is distributing the money, literally has no checks and no no accountability to the actual American taxpayer. So it's a huge vector for fraud, waste, and abuse.
Speaker 0: Do these people not respect taxpayer money?
Speaker 2: I mean, there's no incentive to you if you work in the government. I think the incentives will always decide the outcomes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Do you guys feel like you're putting yourself at risk by doing this because you're stirring up so much hostility by these people ripping us off?
Speaker 1: A %. Well, we don't need to speculate about that. You can see online in in the protests that they make that very clear. I mean, I've been hanged in effigy many times, and there have been people that have actively advocated at these violent protests violent protests for my death and have also advocated for the death of the the people at Doge.
Speaker 3: I think the young folks of us have gotten email threats from reporters and the public alike. I think speaking for myself I dropped out of Harvard and came here to serve my country and it's been unfortunate to see you know lost friendships, most of campus hates me now, but I think fundamentally I hope people realize through conversations like this that reform is genuinely needed and if there's one I think this is important to say if there's one group of people who really have a shot of success it's the people here you know they're up until 2AM Monday through Sunday, those should not recognize weekends we're working all the time.
Speaker 0: What inspired you to drop out of Harvard to do this?
Speaker 3: You know there's a lot of reform that's needed. I think the value of this and the impact here is so much more vast than anything you could learn in classroom doing computer science.
Speaker 0: And you guys are sleeping here. I'm hearing you guys are up all night. You have this meeting at 10:00 every Wednesday.
Speaker 3: We'll probably, go back to work right after this. Yeah.
Speaker 0: You're going back to work after this.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: It's almost 11:00. So that's early.
Speaker 3: That's early.
Speaker 0: It's early? Can
Speaker 1: I go to bed?
Speaker 0: That's an incredible work ethic. You guys should be really, really proud of yourself. Do good people come up to you and say thank you for doing what you're doing? Absolutely.
Speaker 4: There are people in the state department that will stop you or all of the agencies that we've been to that'll stop you in the hallways or write emails and say, was scared to write this or I don't know if you're interested in this, but they usually have great ideas. And if they often have the best ideas because they've worked in the places and they've been stifled by the bureaucracy for so many years. So one of the the great things that at least in my experience that I you know, we listen to them and empower them.
Speaker 2: So Yes, in fact,
Speaker 1: I'd like to emphasize that because we'd like to just give a big thank you to all the government employees who are helping reduce the waste and fraud because this is, you know, we really couldn't do it without you. So It's a group effort. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I'm not trying to sort of say all government employees are bad, that's absolutely not the case. It's just that, you know, there actually does need to be a serious effort to reduce the waste from Ford and we're just making that happen and a lot of people in the government are very glad to see it happen.
Speaker 5: I think it's really important to recognize every single person around this table that's embedded within an agency is supporting that agency whether they're working on systems or working through people. We are encountering droves of government employees who are missionaries not mercenaries who are actually here serving because they believe in what they're doing they want to do things well. We are trying to empower them and they feel empowered now to ask the question of why, why aren't we doing this? What else can we be doing? How can we fix this?
And I think agency by agency it is filled with exceptional government employees right and we when we give them the tools, when we give them the systems and we leave behind systems to help them do their jobs better that's the permanent change right and they're embracing that not because it's new to them it's because it's something they've always wanted to do but for the first time ever we're giving them the tools and the collaboration to be able to do that.
Speaker 0: It's a very important message, That message needs to get out a lot more I'm so glad you said that.
Speaker 5: We have exceptional people at all of our agencies, exceptional. I mean they do a thankless job and they work incredibly hard.
Speaker 0: I love to hear how collaborative it is with these people in these agencies. And it's not all conflict. Sometimes in the media, always hear about conflict and you guys are considered these ruthless suits that come in and scare people. It's Conflict is the exception.
Speaker 1: There is conflict, but that is the exception. It's actually true of history in general. You know, people study the wars a lot, but actually most of the time there wasn't war.
Speaker 0: It's just not as exciting. It's just not as exciting. Right. Exactly. Well, the TV guys, we like conflict, but in this case, we love the collaboration.
So thank you guys. Thanks for allowing me this access in here. You guys are just really, really bright, young, smart Patriots. And you have a great team. And thank you, Elon, for everything you've done for the country.
We really appreciate it. We're eternally grateful.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. We got the Maryland dad body cam footage. That exclusive tape.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently shared a series of posts revealing shocking government spending abuses uncovered by Elon Musk and the DOGE team. They exposed a $4 billion COVID fund in the Department of Education that was misused, and the United States Institute of Peace, which ironically had loaded guns and questionable contracts. The Small Business Administration even issued loans to deceased individuals. I also visited a limestone mine where retirement paperwork is still handled on paper. Throughout, we met Big Balls, a key figure in rooting out fraud in federal payments.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
🚨 Your tax dollars have been set on fire by the government—and it’s much worse than you think. Jesse Watters just sat down with Elon Musk and the DOGE team to pull back the curtain. What they uncovered will leave you speechless. And yes, you finally get to meet Big Balls. His backstory did not disappoint. 🧵 THREAD
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
📍Don't forget to bookmark this thread. You'll want to remember what the bureaucracy spent your money on before DOGE stepped in. Now, onto the clips!
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
It kicked off with a bombshell. Elon Musk and his DOGE team had uncovered one of the most outrageous COVID-era scams inside the Department of Education. There was a $4 billion fund sitting there—and no one had to provide a receipt to use it. As one DOGE staffer explained, “There was a four billion-dollar COVID fund in the Department of Education. There was no receipt required so people could just draw down on it.” Naturally, the money went everywhere it shouldn’t have. “When people looked into it—they found that money was being used to rent out Caesars Palace for parties, rent out stadiums, et cetera.” To stop the abuse, DOGE made one change. “The one change that DOGE made with the Department of Education, is we had the simple requirement that if you draw down money you must first upload a receipt.” That’s it. Upload a receipt. “That was the only change made—you must upload your receipt—and upon doing so nobody drew down money anymore.” The grift dried up overnight.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A $4 billion COVID fund in the Department of Education had no receipt requirements, allowing people to draw down money freely. Upon investigation, it was found that the funds were used to rent Caesar's Palace and stadiums for parties.
The Department of Education implemented a simple change requiring recipients to upload a receipt before drawing down money. Although the receipts were not checked and could be fake, requests for money stopped entirely.
Initially, fraud starts small and is concealed, but if left unchecked, it grows more brazen over time, eventually escalating to renting out stadiums.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was a a $4,000,000,000 COVID fund, in the Department of Education, and there was no receipts required. So people could just draw down on it. And when people looked into it, this wasn't just us before us. They found that money was being used to rent out Caesar's Palace parties, rent out stadiums, etcetera. And so the one change that Doge made with part of education is we had the simple requirement that if you draw down money, you must first upload a receipt.
That was the only change that was made, you must upload your receipt And upon doing so
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Nobody drew down any money anymore.
Speaker 1: Yes. But we we didn't say that we'd check the receipt. You could send a fake You could send a picture of your dog. Anything. Anything.
Anything. And and they but as soon as we asked for anything at all, suddenly the requests were like, oh, we don't need it anymore. That's interesting. They were renting Caesar's Palace. Yes.
They were, like, basically partying on the tax share of money. Stadiums? Yes. Leasing stadiums. Leasing stadiums.
For what? For parties, basically.
Speaker 0: For parties?
Speaker 1: Yes. That's a big party. It's a big party. You'd think if you were stealing, you'd start small. They do start small.
But then over what happens is over the years so, generally, the fraud starts out small and they try to hide it. But then year after year, if nobody stops the fraud, it gets more and more brazen, and and every year it gets bigger until they're literally renting out stadiums.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But that was just the beginning. Next up: the United States Institute of Peace—a government agency with “peace” in the name that turned out to be anything but. “We went into the agency and found they had loaded guns inside of their headquarters. Institute for Peace,” a DOGE staffer said. Musk put it bluntly: “Any organizational name is going to kind of be the opposite of the title.” And according to the team, that proved to be true. “It was by far the least peaceful agency we’ve worked with, ironically.” But the deeper they looked, the worse it got. “Additionally we found they were spending money on things like private jets and they even had a $130,000-dollar contract with a former member of the Taliban. This is real. We don’t encounter that in most agencies.” Guns. Jets. Taliban contracts. All tucked under a banner of “peace.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The United States Institute of Peace was described as the least peaceful agency encountered, with loaded guns found inside its headquarters. The agency was allegedly spending money on private jets and had a $130,000 contract with a former member of the Taliban for generic services with no clear description. It is unclear what the money was for. Since the country's founding, the number of agencies has increased from four to over 400. President Trump signed two executive orders to reduce the number of agencies, including the Institute of Peace, prompting an investigation that uncovered weapons and payments to the Taliban.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: United States Institute of Peace, is definitely the agency we had the most fight at. We actually went into the agency and found that they had loaded guns inside of their headquarters. Institute for Peace. I mean, given company any given organizational name is gonna be it's gonna be the opposite of the title. Right.
Yeah. Yeah. And so it was the by far the least peaceful agency that we've worked with Yeah. Ironically. Of course.
Additionally, we found that they were spending money on things like private jets, and they even had a 130,000 contract with a former member of the Taliban. This is this is real. We don't encounter that in most agencies. Yeah. What was the money going to the Taliban for?
So it was a contractor. They received a hundred and $30,000 for generic services. And to Elon's point, there was not actually a clear description of what the contractor services were for. Was it for opium? Unclear.
Or weapon or weapons? Or nothing. Or or nothing. Or or abroad. Or, yeah, nothing.
And and you naturally have to ask the question, how did we get here? Like, when the country was founded, there were only four agencies. Today, there are over 400. So there's been a 100 x increase in the number of agencies since the founding of the nation. And thanks to president Trump, he's now signed two executive orders to start to reduce the number of agencies in the government, and the Institute of Peace was one of them, which is why our team went in to try and understand what was going on.
And that's when we found all of the craziness, like the weapons in their armory. We found the payments to the Taliban.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Before we roll the next clip: if you’re not following me, you’re missing out on critical updates. Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed. → @VigilantFox Now, back to the story you came for. https://t.co/lvNXgz2ciS
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But the Institute of Peace saga went deeper. Just when you thought it couldn’t get more surreal—the cover-up began. DOGE had barely walked through the doors before the agency started deleting records. “Just a few hours we got into their headquarters we found their chief accountant had actually deleted over a terabyte of accounting records from several years.” The obvious question came up: why? “You would have to ask the question, well why would somebody do that? The DOGE team was fortunately able to recover that data with the help of a few great employees at the Institute of Peace.” Once they had the files back, the full picture emerged. “They received $55 million a year from Congress and on the money that went unspent, instead of returning that to Congress, they would sweep it into a private bank account which has no congressional oversight and that’s what they would use to fund events at their headquarters and the private jets.” For the DOGE team, this wasn’t just an example of government waste—it was something far worse. “I think it’s a great example because most Americans don’t know what’s going on at a lot of these smaller agencies and this is—I think this is the most extreme case of some of the wasteful spending we are finding.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Shortly after arriving at the Institute of Peace headquarters, the speaker's team discovered that the chief accountant had deleted over a terabyte of accounting records. The team recovered the data with help from Institute of Peace employees. The speaker alleges that the Institute received $55 million annually from Congress, and instead of returning unspent funds, they transferred it to a private bank account without congressional oversight. These funds were allegedly used for events at their headquarters and private jets. The speaker believes this exemplifies wasteful spending within smaller agencies. Another speaker claims agencies are hiding money and sending it to the Taliban, and that there were loaded weapons in the Institute of Peace buildings. The deletion of financial information is characterized as a cover-up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So just a few hours after we got into their headquarters, we found that their chief accountant had actually deleted over a terabyte of accounting records from several years. So you'd have to ask the question, well, why would somebody do that? And the Doge team, fortunately, was able to recover that data with the help of a few great employees at the Institute of Peace. And I think the most troubling thing was they received $55,000,000 a year from congress, and any money that went unspent instead of returning that to congress, they would sweep it into a private bank account which had no congressional oversight, and that's what they would use to fund things like events at their headquarters and the private jets. And so I think it's a great example because most most Americans don't know what's going on at a lot of these smaller agencies and this is, I think the most extreme case of some of the, a wasteful spend that we're finding.
Speaker 1: So the agencies are hiding money from you. They're sending it to the Taliban. They have loaded weapons in the department buildings.
Speaker 0: At the Institute of Peace.
Speaker 1: At the Institute of Peace. Yeah. That's right. So this is a cover up when you guys roll in?
Speaker 2: This one, yes, a cover up.
Speaker 1: It's a cover
Speaker 2: did delete a vast amount of financial information. That's really a definition of a cover
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Then came something so ridiculous it sounded like satire. The Small Business Administration had sent out over $300 million in loans… to people who were already dead. And that’s not even the wildest part. A DOGE staffer detailed: “Is the Small Business Administration giving loans to dead people, people over the age of 120? The answer was yes and it was around $330 million in total.” Musk followed up with the part that shocked everyone at the table. “And also people with birthdays in the future.” “Like, the birthdate I think in one case was like—we’re talking about your great grandchildren. With the birthdate, like, of 2165.” “More than a century from now was the birth date.” “Because your birthday is in the future, the far future. Not like next year. This is either fraudulent or we have your birthday wrong.” Billions in taxpayer money—and no one bothered to check the dates.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Small Business Administration reportedly gave loans to dead people and people with impossible ages, totaling around $330 million. Some recipients had birth dates placing them over 115 years old, while others had birth dates in the future, such as 2165. These errors suggest potential fraud or incorrect data entry. The question is whether these discrepancies are due to typos or identity theft.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is the small business administration giving loans to dead people, people over the age of 20? The answer was yes, and, it was around $330,000,000 in total.
Speaker 1: So People with a birthday that could not possibly be real.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Meaning, they're they're over a hundred they're 15 years old or older. The oldest living American is 14. So it's safe to say if anybody is in the in the system as a hundred and 15 years or older, that is fair. And and also people with birth dates in the future. What does that mean?
Well, in one I mean, I think the like, the birth date birth date, I think, in one case was like Fetuses? We're getting No. Not even. No. Really really sort of a you're talking about, like, your great grandchildren.
Like like with the birth date like of I think it was like 2165. So more than a century from now was the birth date. George Jetson was getting paid. Yes. Because your birthday is in the future.
Like the far like the far future, not like next year. Right. And we either this is either fraudulent or we have your birthday wrong. It's either a typo or someone stealing. Which is it?
Yeah. Right. Yes. You should you should at least ask which is it.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But there is a light at the end of the tunnel...or mine in this case. One of the most bizarre symbols of government inefficiency is a limestone mine in Pennsylvania—where retirement paperwork is still handled the old-fashioned way: on paper. Joe Gebbia, co-founder of Airbnb and now part of DOGE, decided to see it for himself. “I had a chance to go to the mine and so I took a golf cart through security down into the side of the mountain and I entered this whole space of caverns and roads. And we get to a metal door and I open it up and there in front of me is a sea of filing cabinets from the 1960s.” He painted the scene: “I’m walking around, it’s super chilly and smells like paper. I realize, for a mine, it’s a great mine. It’s secure, it’s well-lit. Temperature controlled——The question we why are we still using paper in 2025?” He even brought along replica folders to show just how outdated the system is. “I would rather do my taxes in the dark, than have to go through this.” But this story had a win. “What we are doing is we are bringing some process online with modern software. I’m excited to share that as of tonight we have 25 retirees going through an entirely online retirement process in the government for the very first time.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 visited a mine used for storing physical media, specifically filing cabinets dating back to the 1960s, containing retirement paperwork. The speaker questions why paper is still used in 2025, showing an example of a retiree's case folder, which is compiled by hand and moved through the mine. Speaker 1 adds that the retirement process can take over six months due to the manual compilation and storage of paper documents, with calculations also done by hand. Speaker 0 states that the paperwork is extensive and difficult to process. They are implementing modern software to bring the retirement process online, and currently have 25 retirees going through an entirely online retirement process for the first time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Help me out with retirement, and a few weeks ago, I had a chance to go to the mine. And so I took a golf cart through security down into the side of a mountain and entered daylight left, and I entered this whole space of caverns and roads. And we get to a metal door, and I open it up and there in front of me is sea of filing cabinets from the nineteen sixties. And I'm walking around, it's super chilly, smells like paper. And I, you know, I realized for for a as a mind, it's a great mind.
It's secure. It's well lit, temperature controlled. And so the question we're not ask we're asking is not is this a good place to store physical media, which it is. It's amazing for that. The question is, why are we still using paper in 2025?
So I brought something to show you Yeah. Of what's inside the mind.
Speaker 1: And and only the the normal process for retirement is over could be over six months. So once you file your retirement papers, that's why it takes six months.
Speaker 0: Mhmm. What what is that? So these are replica case folders that people use to retire from the government. And so these are all compiled by hand, moved around on carts through the mine. It takes many months to do that, and this one is a single retiree's paper required to leave the government.
Speaker 1: Wants to retire, they can't because it takes six months to compile the paper and carry the paper into a mine where it is stored. And also, all the calculations are done by hand.
Speaker 0: Everything has to Reconciled, adjudicated, this is thicker than the Word of the Rings trilogy.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And if I had to process this, I would rather do my taxes in the dark than have to go through
Speaker 1: this. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And so what we're doing is we're we're bringing this process online with modern software. And, I'm excited to share that as of tonight, we have 25 retirees going through an entirely online retirement process in the government for the very first time.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
And finally, we got to meet the legend himself: Big Balls. For months, he was a mysterious figure inside the DOGE operation—known only by his nickname. Then Jesse Watters asked, “Who’s Big Balls?” A voice from across the table answered without hesitation: “That’s me.” Musk leaned in: “That should be obvious.” The nickname, it turns out, started as a joke on LinkedIn. He wanted to stand out in a sea of suits who played it safe. He didn’t expect anyone to notice. They noticed. But there’s more to Big Balls than a meme. He plays a key role in the team, hunting down fraud buried in federal payment systems. “I’m working on some payment computer stuff,” he said. “We started looking into the payment computers to root out fraud and waste.” And what they found was staggering. In many cases, you could pull up a line item for $20 million—and find no record of where it went. No trail. No explanation. Just holes in the system. That’s what DOGE is trying to fix. And Big Balls is leading the charge.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker uses "BigBalls" as their LinkedIn username to avoid being perceived as overly serious or risk-averse. They didn't expect anyone to notice it.
Currently, the speaker is working on payment computer-related tasks, specifically aiming to eliminate fraud and waste. The initiative involves examining payment computers, revealing a lack of accounting for where payments are directed. For instance, a $20,000,000 line item lacks a clear destination, a common issue in many payment systems.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Big balls. It's big. That should be obvious. Why do they call you Big balls? I just said it as my LinkedIn username.
Okay. Well, people on LinkedIn take themselves, like, super seriously, and they're pretty adverse to risk. And I was like, well, I wanna be neither of those things. So I just I said it, and honestly, I didn't even think anyone would notice. Yeah.
When you clicking this so cringe. What does BigBalls do? Right now, I'm working on some payment computer stuff. So one of our initiatives is to root out fraud and waste. And to do that, we started looking at the payment computers.
And as mentioned earlier, like, there is no accounting of what payments actually go to the payment computer. So, like, we you look at a specific line item, like $20,000,000. You're like, okay. Well, what is this money going to? And for the majority of payment systems, it's like, well, we don't really know.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading. If you appreciate this kind of reporting, follow me for more daily threads. —> @VigilantFox Looking for another 🧵? Victor Davis Hanson just revealed the real reason Trump’s enemies are spiraling. https://t.co/CbXl1wCZjc
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
🚨 Victor Davis Hanson just revealed the real reason Trump’s enemies are spiraling. 1. The polls are a lie. 2. The Democrats have no backup plan. They’re trapped on a sinking ship—and they know it. Then VDH names the one weapon they’re still clinging to. And suddenly, everything makes sense. 🧵 THREAD
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Massive shout-out to @overton_news for cutting together that first clip in this thread! They’re hands down one of the best news accounts on X! Do yourself a favor and give them a follow. —> @overton_news https://t.co/ZteULmww5d
reSee.it AI Summary
China is attempting to shift blame for the COVID-19 outbreak onto the U.S., claiming the virus may have spread in America before detection. In response, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya strongly refutes this, asserting that the Wuhan lab's experiments, partly funded by the U.S., led to the leak. He promises full transparency at the NIH, complying with congressional subpoenas for all COVID-related documents, while criticizing China's lack of cooperation. Bhattacharya emphasizes the need to learn from past mistakes to prevent future pandemics.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
🚨 China is blaming the U.S. for the Covid outbreak. But NIH Director Dr. Bhattacharya says they’ve already been caught red-handed. And now he’s dropping a bombshell. In the wake of the lab-leak confirmation, he’s vowing to release something that could change everything. 🧵 THREAD
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
📍Remember to bookmark this thread. The truth is finally coming to the surface after years of secrecy.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
So what’s the backstory here? As more evidence points to a lab leak in Wuhan, China is now trying to flip the script—blaming the United States for the origins of COVID-19. In a lengthy government paper, Chinese officials claim the virus may have been spreading in the U.S. before it was ever detected. They accuse Washington of ducking responsibility and demand accountability. “The US should cease from shifting blame and evading responsibility, stop finding external excuses for its internal malaise, and genuinely reflect on and overhaul its public health policies,” the paper states. “The US cannot continue to turn a deaf ear to the numerous questions over its conduct.” But this response didn’t come out of nowhere. It followed a fearless move by the Trump administration. They updated the official government website on Covid—not to double down on old narratives, but to expose the truth. The revamped site walks through the case for a lab origin: how Fauci pushed the natural spillover theory, how Biden later shielded him, and how early pandemic policies like masking and distancing were rolled out.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya isn’t letting China get away with it. He spoke to Laura Ingraham and pushed back hard on their attempt to blame the U.S. “It’s shocking, Laura. I guess, what can you do?” he said. Then he laid out the facts. “What happened was that the Chinese lab in Wuhan conducted some mad science experiments.” “Unfortunately, partly funded by the American government. In fact, by the agency that I can now currently lead. That experiment went astray. It leaked and caused the havoc that we faced for years.” “For China to now turn around and say well, the U.S. is to blame—well, I mean, it’s ridiculous, it’s absolutely ridiculous.” He unleashed the truth: “The Chinese were responsible for allowing these experiments to happen in a low security lab. It leaked. They covered it up. And that’s just a fact.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Chinese lab in Wuhan conducted mad science experiments, partly funded by the American government. The experiment went astray, leaked, and caused havoc. China is now claiming the U.S. is to blame, which is considered ridiculous. The Chinese were responsible for allowing these experiments to happen in a low-security lab. The lab leak occurred, and they covered it up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's shocking, Laura. I mean, it I mean, I guess, what can you do? What happened was that the Chinese lab in Wuhan conducted some mad science experiments, unfortunately, partly funded by the American government, in fact, by the agency that can now currently lead. And that that experiment went astray. It it leaked and caused the havoc that we faced for years.
And for China to now turn around and say, well, The US is to blame and and and that well, I mean, it's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous. The Chinese were responsible for allowing these experiments to happen in a low security lab. It leaked. They covered it up, and that's just a fact.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Before we roll the next clip: if you’re not following me, you’re missing out on critical updates. Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed. → @VigilantFox Now, back to the story you came for. https://t.co/cG24L0QoDa
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But that’s not where it ends. In a moment that could change everything, Bhattacharya promised something Americans have waited years to hear: full transparency. “That’s exactly what I’m doing at the NIH,” he said. “I have gotten congressional subpoenas for all of the documents at the NIH that are related to Covid-19.” “I’m complying with every single one.” Every document. Every memo. Every internal conversation from before and during the pandemic—he says it’s all being turned over. “We are going to have, at least from the American side, all the things that we knew and were talking about—the U.S. Government was talking about at the time and in the years running up to the pandemic.” But this only works if both sides come clean. And China won’t. “The problem is that the Chinese government won’t give those same things to us,” he explained. “For instance, the NIH tried to get the lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters and they wouldn’t share that lab notebook with us.” So while Bhattacharya is opening the vault, China is locking theirs tighter than ever.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: All the COVID documents that are currently under seal in The United States should be unclassified. So we we really get the full sense of this.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. I I completely agree with that, Laura. And that, in fact, that's exactly what I'm doing at the NIH. I've gotten congressional subpoenas for all of the documents of the NIH that are related to COVID nineteen, and I'm complying with every single one.
We're gonna have, at least from the American side, all the things that we knew and we're talking about, the US government was talking about at the time and then the years running up to the pandemic. Problem is that the Chinese government won't give those same things to us. We won't we for instance, the NIH tried to get the lab notebooks from the Wuhan Experimenters, and they wouldn't share that lab notebook with us.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
And finally, he ended with a warning. Transparency is just the first step. What matters most is what we do with what we find. If we don’t learn lessons from our mistakes, then what was the point of all of this? “What we need to do actually, and this is, again, something President Trump is going to deliver and is delivering, that we have to never again act in the ways that we did in the run-up to the pandemic.” He pointed straight at the risky experiments that triggered this crisis. “In ways that put all of the world in danger of causing a pandemic by doing mad science experiments.” That’s the line he’s drawing—not just for the history books, but to stop the next global disaster before it starts.
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump promised to deliver the full American story of what led to the pandemic and is keeping that promise. The goal is to let the chips fall where they may and ensure the American people know the truth. Trump is also delivering on a commitment to prevent future pandemics caused by dangerous scientific experiments. The aim is to never repeat the actions that endangered the world in the lead-up to the pandemic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump, he made it one of his, his promises to the American people. He's he's delivering. We are going to make sure that the American people know the full story, at least as far as the American side is concerned, of what led to the pandemic. And let the chips fall where they may. What we need to do actually and and this is again something that president Trump is going to deliver and is delivering, is that we have to never again act in the ways that we did in the run up to the pandemic in ways that put the all of the world in danger of causing a pandemic by doing mad science experiment.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading. If you appreciate this kind of reporting, follow me for more daily threads. —> @VigilantFox Looking for another 🧵? 🔥 Musk and DOGE pull back the curtain on the insane examples of your tax dollars at work! https://t.co/O20Ef4ajxl
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
🚨 Your tax dollars have been set on fire by the government—and it’s much worse than you think. Jesse Watters just sat down with Elon Musk and the DOGE team to pull back the curtain. What they uncovered will leave you speechless. And yes, you finally get to meet Big Balls. His backstory did not disappoint. 🧵 THREAD
