2/27/25: SCOTUS Saves Trump Cuts, Trump Tells Cabinet To Back Elon Or Get Out, Elon Agrees To Jon Stewart Interview
46:32 Share

Ready to celebrate the magic of live music? South by Southwest Music Festival returns to Austin, Texas this March 10th through the 15th with a fresh lineup of legendary and rising talent. Join a global community of music lovers, artists, industry professionals, and creatives at the 2025 South by Southwest Music Festival.

With hundreds of showcasing artists performing across six days in over 50 venues, Discovery is right around the corner at South by Southwest. Explore the lineup at SXSW.com.

It's time to put America first when it comes to spectrum airwaves. Dynamic spectrum sharing is an American innovation developed to meet American needs, led by American companies and supported by the U.S. military who use the spectrum to defend the homeland. It maximizes a scarce national resource, wireless spectrum, to protect national security and deliver greater competition and lower costs without forcing the U.S. military to waste $120 billion relocating critical defense systems.

America won't win by letting three big cellular companies keep U.S. spectrum policy stuck in the past, hoarding spectrum for their exclusive use to limit competition here at home while giving Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE a big leg up overseas. For America to lead, federal policymakers must build on the proven success of U.S. spectrum sharing to ensure national security, turbocharge domestic manufacturing, rural connectivity, and create American jobs. Let's keep America at the forefront of global wireless leadership. Learn more at SpectrumFuture.com.

Creativity doesn't wait. It moves, shifts, evolves, just like you. And with a Yoga PC from Lenovo, your tools finally keep up.

Stunning, smart, and sustainably sourced, Yoga PCs from Lenovo are designed to amplify your creativity with AI-powered performance. Whether you're sketching, editing, animating, or composing, Yoga moves with you, adapting to your creativity, to your rhythm. With beautiful displays and the flexibility to shift from laptop to tablet, Yoga PCs

Empowering creators everywhere.

Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our

full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com.

Good morning, everybody. Happy Thursday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Jam-packed show today. We're going to try to rip through as much news as we possibly can. So last night, around midnight, we got the first Supreme Court weighing in, not really a ruling, but a temporary stay, weighing in on some Doge activity. So break all of that down for you, what it means, what is going to happen next. Also, big cabinet meeting yesterday that Elon Musk was at. Some very interesting things happened there. We'll show you some of the highlights. Sagar really wanted to sound off.

on the Trump golden visa. So Ryan, Emily covered it yesterday, but we had a bit of a different view. So we wanted to express that as well. Obviously important in the context of sort of like philosophically and what is this country and how do we want to pursue immigration, et cetera. More airplane near misses, absolutely terrifying. Two coming in a very close succession. We'll show you some really shocking footage from one of those near misses.

There's a new Biden book that is going to be coming out. It is the inside story of his decline and the cover up. Jake Tapper is involved. So that's led a lot of people to ask whether he is the right person to be doing the reporting there, whether he was himself in on part of that cover up.

And Jeff Bezos making it plain that the Washington Post is not going to brook any dissent from the pro-oligarch agenda. So we'll talk to you about that and the fallout that commenced afterwards. Yeah, there's a lot to say about it. There is. It's just so hilarious to me the way that how naked –

uh how all of these people are and more it actually fits well with uh guests that counterpoint's had on yesterday really excited to be able to bring this to everybody they got to sit down with the cfpb's former rohit chopra who was behind the scenes working at the biden administration rohit chopra previously has not

yet responded publicly to a lot of the allegations made against him by Marc Andreessen and by Mark Zuckerberg. We will be exclusively dropping that for our premium subscribers early, so if you want to go ahead and subscribe, you can, but we're going to give you a little teaser of what that looks like. Let's take a listen. When it comes to debanking, I don't think people should ever lose their account because of their exercising their religion speech. And I'll tell you, one of the first things I did years ago

was to put forth a stronger policy that made it clear when that type of discrimination or debanking ran afoul of the law. Guess who sued to block it? - Who's that? - It was actually the bank lobby

and the Chamber of Commerce. So if you want to hear the whole thing, earlybreakingpoints.com, support the type of journalism that we're able to do here. Thank you very much. But that, well, why don't we get to the mini block, Crystal? Yeah, so some news, some court news, legal news coming out last night. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said,

weighing in on whether or not the Trump administration needs to immediately unfreeze these USAID funds. Let's go ahead and put the tariff sheet up on the screen. Headline here from Politico, Chief Justice allows Trump administration to keep foreign aid frozen for now. And this actually applies specifically to foreign aid contracts where the work has already been performed and people are waiting on payment. So it's specifically

specifically applies to those payments. This is part of a back and forth that's been going on that we've been tracking here about USAID that has been working its way through the court system. Multiple federal judges have said to the Trump administration, you have to unfreeze this aid. And rather than try to do that, the Trump administration has repeatedly come up with different legal rationales why they believe like, oh, we are complying and we just have now a new different legal theory for why this aid can be frozen.

A federal judge yesterday had said, listen, I'm done. You've been playing these games for weeks now. You have until midnight to unfreeze these funds. The Trump administration basically came back and said we literally can't do that. They appealed to the Supreme Court. This is not any sort of a final decision or final ruling. This is just to preserve the status quo. John Roberts weighing in and saying, OK, we're going to give you some more time and asking for new filings to be put into this process.

case by Friday. So Supreme Court almost certainly ultimately going to weigh in on this, but really significant because like I said, it's the first time the Supreme Court weighed in. And also, of course, we've been tracking this building crisis of whether or not the Trump administration was going to comply with the court orders that are coming down. Now, so far, like I said, they haven't been in compliance and there've been multiple judges on this case specifically who have said you aren't in compliance. But at this point, they're not just

openly defying those court orders, they are coming up with legal theories for why they think they are justified in continuing to freeze this aid. In addition, as part of this filing, the latest legal theory that they've put in front of the courts is, okay, well, you said we couldn't do this blanket freeze. Now we've gone through line by line and we've decided that we want to freeze some 90%. We want to cancel some 90%.

of these contracts with regard to USAID specifically. So now they're saying, well, it's not a blanket freeze anymore. We just have gone through and decided that 90% of these contracts want to be cut. That in and of itself, Sagar, of course, is very significant because it includes some of the things that had previously actually gotten waivers. So included in that 90% cut is things like PEPFAR funds for people largely in Africa who have HIV and AIDS.

It's going to tie in with some comments that Elon Musk made with regard to the cabinet meeting on Ebola. There's a lot of pieces here, obviously, when you cut something by 90% that come into play. And this is all building up ultimately to that showdown where they want to take a case of the Supreme Court and make the argument that they should be able to unilaterally cut funds as executive branch, even things that have been appropriated by Congress. This is part of that unitary executive theory. This is part of...

them wanting to deem the Impoundment Control Act unconstitutional so that Congress effectively, in their view, sets what is a ceiling for funding. But then the executive branch can come in and say, but we don't like that program. We don't like that program. We don't like that program. And effectively consolidates the power of the purse largely within the executive branch. So we're

one step closer to that eventual showdown. And I think it's anybody's guess which way the Supreme Court's gonna rule. - Yes, very good summation, as we said. So it's the, this is just a stay. It's a stay that will refer the matter to the Supreme Court, which will allow it to happen before they can make that.

I will say there's some interesting actually stuff also happening at the same time when the House of Representatives is continuing a resolution to fund the government. Now, theoretically, that continuing resolution would do what? It would continue to fund these very programs which have been paused by Doge. So there's actually an interim House maneuver which would both

fund these, perhaps adding more to how SCOTUS will have to weigh it with the current Congress actually funding the programs right now. So legally, as I understand that, that will add to some of the argument, obviously for congressional power over the purse, but it will go to the full Supreme Court. I mean, I said here before, while you said it's definitely anybody's guess, I don't think Roberts would likely rule on behalf of the impoundment clause like

in the way that the Trump administration wants. The people with the most expansive views of presidential power are Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Alito. Justice Thomas is kind of a wild card in this regard. Oh, really? I thought he'd be on board. So you would think, theoretically, but again, as I understand it, in his very small-c conservative views previously in the way they've been applied,

from a Federalist Society person I spoke to. He's more of a wild card. And Justice Gorsuch, actually, would be the number one person. Justice Gorsuch and Amy Barrett both come from a similar, more libertarian school. If you look at some of the past rulings Gorsuch has made in this, it would seem to indicate likely to side with the liberals. So it's not

It's not a slam dunk by the Trump administration at all. They're trying to get this as early as possible so that it can obviously inform what their stuff, what actions they can continue to make in the future. So it's interesting. Nonetheless, and it is the latest thing, as you said, is a relatively routine legal maneuver. We see SCOTUS stays all the time.

before they want to decide a full movement at the court. And you were talking also about the midnight deadline. It's like, well, you know, in terms of actually being able to comply with a literal midnight deadline with all these crazy governmental systems doesn't seem particularly realistic. So they also want to set up some sort of showdown just on that. Totally. And I think that's an important part of it. I mean, I do think it was probably impossible for them to comply by midnight, which is what they were saying. Like, we literally can't do this because the government is not just a switch you can flick on and off.

On the other hand, the petitioners would say, you've had like weeks and weeks at this point to get it together and try to unfreeze these funds. And instead of taking any action in that direction, instead, you've spent your time trying to come up with new legal rationales that would justify you defying this court order. So that's what this came down to. But, you know, you have to keep in mind if you're Chief Justice John Roberts, if you're the Supreme Court, you really want to maintain your legitimacy.

So if you're weighing in and saying, no, no, no, I agree, you have to unfreeze these funds by midnight, and you know that that's probably impossible to accomplish, well, then you're already in the situation of a total head-to-head showdown with the executive branch. And they know that the second that the executive branch, if they were to go down the path of open defiance, then the Supreme Court as an institution is on, let's just say, very shaky ground. Right.

So, you know, that's part of the dynamics that play in here is they want to preserve their legitimacy. And if there's a credible threat, which I think there is, that the executive branch is just going to defy orders that they don't like and don't want to comply with, then that puts pressure on them to weigh in on the side of the Trump administration so that they can preserve the appearance of their own power.

So that's one of the dynamics that go in here. And you've made the FDR comparison before. I think there is an apt comparison here because part of why the Supreme Court ultimately decides like, all right, we'll let some of your programs go through that they were previously blocking is because they threatened to pack the court. They knew that their sort of like power and legitimacy was on the line. And that's part of what applied pressure to them to, you know, go ahead and back what he was doing. And I think there is a kind of a similar dynamic that could play out here as well. Absolutely. There's a book.

I'm totally blanking on the name right now, which I highly recommend. Okay, Supreme Power. That's what it is by Jeff Social. I read it several years ago. It's called Supreme Power, Franklin Roosevelt versus Supreme Court, which goes into this. I should probably reread it for some of these before the decision comes down. But if anybody's interested, that will give you some parallels.

Ready to celebrate the magic of live music? South by Southwest Music Festival returns to Austin, Texas this March 10th through the 15th with a fresh lineup of legendary and rising talent. Join a global community of music lovers, artists, industry professionals, and creatives at the 2025 South by Southwest Music Festival.

With hundreds of showcasing artists performing across six days in over 50 venues, Discovery is right around the corner at South by Southwest. Explore the lineup at SXSW.com.

It's time to put America first when it comes to spectrum airwaves. Dynamic spectrum sharing is an American innovation developed to meet American needs, led by American companies and supported by the U.S. military who use the spectrum to defend the homeland. It maximizes a scarce national resource, wireless spectrum, to protect national security and deliver greater competition and lower costs without forcing the U.S. military to waste $120 billion relocating critical defense systems.

America won't win by letting three big cellular companies keep U.S. spectrum policy stuck in the past, hoarding spectrum for their exclusive use to limit competition here at home while giving Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE a big leg up overseas. For America to lead, federal policymakers must build on the proven success of U.S. spectrum sharing to ensure national security, turbocharge domestic manufacturing, rural connectivity, and create American jobs. Let's keep America at the forefront of global wireless leadership. Learn more at SpectrumFuture.com.

This is Ashley Canetti from the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous podcast. It feels like everyone is talking about GLP-1s these days. Those are Ozempic and Semaglutide. And with future health, you can find out if they're right for you too. Maybe you feel like you've been struggling with your weight for years and no matter how much you diet and exercise, you just don't feel healthy. Just go to tryfh.com to find out if weight loss meds are right for you. Tryfh.com

Future Health is not a health care services provider. Meds are prescribed at provider's discretion. Results may vary. Sponsored by Future Health. So extraordinary cabinet meeting. I guess that's one way to put it. Everybody else is in suits. Elon's in a dark MAGA hat wearing an overcoat and a T-shirt. Okay. Yeah. Got it. That's definitely how we dress inside of the White House. Don't ask me why. Well, what the most interesting part was Trump basically settled the Elon question with his cabinet.

which is who has the authority over this email and compliance? And previously, I really thought that that email was a very important jump off point because I was like, oh, the cabinet's really asserting itself here as the executive. They're the people who have been Senate confirmed to run these government departments. But here is what Trump had to say. He said, if you're against Elon, we'll throw them out of here. Let's take a listen.

I just wanted to ask you that President Trump put out a truth social today saying that everybody in the cabinet was happy with you. I just wondered if you had heard otherwise, and if you had heard anything about members of the cabinet who weren't happy with the way things were going. And if so, what are you doing to address any dissatisfaction?

The President: Let the cabinet speak just for a second. Is anybody unhappy with the president? If you are, we'll throw him out of here. Is anybody unhappy?

We have a lot of respect for Elon and that he's doing this. And some disagree a little bit, but I will tell you, for the most part, I think everyone's not only happy, they're thrilled. Okay. All right. I mean, settle the question. There you go. You have got there. Trump basically endorsing it 100%. He said, well, if anybody disagrees with it, get out of here. Elon also expanded. This is more in terms of the relationship. This is why it's important.

during the meeting where he expanded on why he decided to send that email in the first place. And as Trump had said previously, it was at his own urging. Here's what Elon had to say. Like last week, the president encouraged me via True Social and also via phone call to be more aggressive. And I was like, okay. Yes, sir, Mr. President. We'll indeed do that. The president is the commander-in-chief. I do what the president asks. So...

And I said, "Can we send out an email to everyone just saying what did you get done last week?" The president said yes, so it did that. And, you know, we got a partial response. We're going to send another email. Our goal is not to be capricious or unfair. We want to give people every opportunity to send an email. And the email could simply be, "What I'm working on is too sensitive or classified to describe."

Like literally just that would be sufficient. You know, I think this is just common sense. And what is your target number for how many workers, employees you're looking to cut total? We wish to keep everyone who is doing a job that is essential and doing that job well.

But if the job is not essential or they're not doing the job well, they obviously should not be on the public payroll. So I just think it's important to say Trump has settled the Elon question. It's like, all right, this is what the future conceivably looks like now. And he is in control in terms of his ability to send these emails and whatnot. And I will fully admit I had no idea that this would ever be the dynamic. And I would never have predicted that Donald Trump would allow

this kind of subsuming of his own presidency over this. If I were a cabinet official, I would be furious, obviously, because this is like, you know, I got confirmed by the Senate. My shit is all out there. I have to comply with all of these laws and sell stock and

all these other like ethics things that you're allowed to do. Like meanwhile, you know, somebody can just bigfoot and come on in here. But I do think at a certain point, we just have to be like, all right, this is what Trump wants. Like it's no longer some sort of secondary project. Like Trump fully, he's had the information. It's February 27th. It's 37 days into Donald Trump's presidency. The fights and all of that have happened. And he has settled the question now that he wants Elon to at least be in charge of

of all of these cuts and basically of setting the guidance for federal agencies. And so he can bear the consequences of that now. Donald Trump has made it clear that this is not some sort of fall guy or any of that. He's either endorsed some of the positions and or is basically saying he's the person who's in charge. And in a sense, that seems to be the point of that whole cabinet show.

When I covered the White House last time, Trump famously would have the cameras and he would bring them in here and force his cabinet officials to be like, Mr. President, you're the greatest president to ever serve in the history of mankind. And I do feel like this was the purpose.

of this entire gathering, and especially to try and publicly be like, if anybody here has a problem, you know, go ahead and get out of here. Yeah. There we go. Yeah. And also to get them all on camera. Yeah, exactly. Saying, oh, no, of course, we love Elon, we do whatever. So yeah, I mean, that's what's wild is you're right. In the first administration, these gatherings of the cabinet secretaries were about licking the boots of Trump.

This one was about licking the boots of Elon. So yeah, I mean, I don't think anyone could have predicted that. I mean, I saw the dynamic developing pretty quickly. I think the first real indication was over the H-1B fight. Yes. Where Trump really had to decide, are you going to back Elon in an issue that he said he's going to go to war over? Or are you going to stick with, you know, the previous incarnation in your MAGA base and some of your longtime supporters, etc.? He came down very

clearly, you know, he didn't equivocate. He came down very clearly on the side of Elon and at every juncture, he has handed power over to Elon Musk. And I don't think that there's any doubt that, um,

That trend is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Our friend Jeff Stein over at the Washington Post, who is doing fantastic reporting, he's also going to make an appearance in the Jeff Bezos blog because you were in there as well. But anyway, he's reporting major changes coming to the federal government led by Musk's Doge. Most significant move to dismiss federal workers now underway. This is the big one. Agencies must submit...

plans to significantly reduce staff size by March 13th. Social Security Administration, under instruction to cut staff in half,

GSA says terminations there are imminent. The Labor Department is eyeing gutting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office by 90%. Oh, you mean the office that Elon Musk and his companies have run afoul of? How interesting. They're going to be gutted by 90%. Mass lease cancellations of federal buildings underway, which is also interesting because everyone's been recalled to the office, but now they're not going to have any office. They already don't actually have enough office space for everybody to be in the office.

100 IRS leases to be nixed per records helps make sense, Jeff says, of why Musk and Trump wanted a unified front today with cabinet secretaries. And, you know, I also just want to

Reflect a little bit on the optics here, which you referenced a little bit with, you know, everybody else is forced to be in their formal attire. Everybody, including Trump, seated at the table. And there's Elon standing in the sort of commanding position and really kind of running the flow of this meeting, wearing whatever the hell he wants to wear and his own branded dark MAGA hat, which is not the original red Make America Great Again hat.

hat, he has created his own brand, his own following. And both of these individuals, Elon and Trump, their main genius really is around branding and symbolism. They think about what this imagery means. And so I think all

All of those pieces are very intentional. And Elon is the person in the government more than anyone, including Donald Trump, who holds the power and is making the decisions right now. And you're absolutely right, Sagar. Like if you're one of these cabinet secretaries who this is your shot and you get to run the show and you went through the Senate confirmation, you did all this. And now you get in there and some 20 something year old doge kid actually has more power in your agency than you do because they're, you know, musk's.

That is a wild situation. And so at the beginning of the week, there was a real question. Are they going to stand for this? Are they going to dissent? Are they going to revolt over this? And yesterday we got the definitive answer, and that is no. They're going to do what Elon Musk wants them to do. You know, and that's my thing now with Donald Trump and all of this. I thought maybe, you know, this is one of those times where you're going to try and set somebody else.

to absorb this. But when you definitively endorse it and then order your people to comply, and listen, that's your prerogative. You're the democratically elected leader. Okay. You know, to build a little bit on your optics, for anybody who's never been in that room, if you ever get the chance, you go on an Oval Office tour, one of the very first things they're going to point out is in the Cabinet Room is that the President's chair is bigger than everybody else because nobody's ever supposed to be taller or bigger than the President. Mm-hmm.

Okay. All right. Interesting, right? In terms of who gets to stand and to speak, look, am I reading too much into it? Not necessarily. It's more just why are you allowing this to happen? Like this is your people who are branding and so-called marketing experts. And I have no choice but to just say like, yeah, he believes it. This is something that he wants. And now Trump will have to bear the consequences of that. So Elon also spoke a little bit about, quote, mistakes that have been made over at Doge. Let's take a listen.

And I should say, also, we will make mistakes. We won't be perfect. But when we make a mistake, we'll fix it very quickly. So, for example, with USAID, one of the things we accidentally canceled very briefly was Ebola, Ebola prevention. I think we all want Ebola prevention. So we restored the Ebola prevention immediately. And there was no interruption.

But we do need to move quickly if we're to achieve a trillion dollar deficit reduction in financial year 2026. It requires saving $4 billion per day every day from now through the end of September. But we can do it and we will do it.

So there you go. In terms of the numbers that have also – this is part of why I'm also starting to get very annoyed is, listen, you can doge all you want. If Congress continues to fund it, then – I mean even if the government is not, quote, spending the money immediately, like at least it's being printed and or held or whatever in escrow by the government for the future. It's not like it's actually changed anything.

stuff there. And also, as I understand it, the current way that the tax bill and all that is shaking out is we're looking at some $4.5 trillion increase in the overall debt limit for what the cap that's being allowed. This is openly acknowledged. I just want people to understand that. It's not only a few hundred more billion in the continuing resolution. It's an extra hundred billion to be spent over at the

tax cut. I mean, we've talked here to a blue in the face about the Pentagon and how if you ever really want to cut spending, like it all exists right there. We can easily change procurement systems and all that. We could spend, we could literally save hundreds of billions and all of that if we want to. I will say, I mean, on the popularity of this, I still have no idea. I think it's now obvious that there is a like blue MAGA

backlash against this. The resistance is activated and it exists. And I don't think anybody can say that's deniable. What's open question to me

It's a similar question of Democrats and Obamacare back in 2009. Will this be depressing to overall Republican turnout? Will it be one of those things where Republicans are tacitly okay with it but they're not enthusiastic about coming out? Or will they actively turn against it? And that's one of those very open questions. I also wonder about the independence and all this, attitudes around government, institutional trust still remain very…

very, very low. Maybe this will change their mind. I'm still not sure. I still think, of course, the economy will be the number one determined factor out of all of this. But part of the issue is that at the very same time that all of this is happening, consumer sentiment is starting to tick down. Go take a look at the S&P 500 and others and some of the reasons why, even though Nvidia beat its earnings yesterday, while you're still seeing some shaky results in the overall stock market.

People are pretty worried about tariffs and about the economy. And without a big plan that kind of sells it to the American people, you kind of just get this chaotic feeling where feeling about the economy and savings and all that is bad. The fundamentals remain horrible, obviously, as we talk about here all the time, for cost of living. And you could end up in a really bad situation. Well, and it becomes increasingly clear it's a pro-oligarch agenda. I mean, when you're doing massive $4 trillion tax cut for the rich –

You know, we'll see whether they do any of the populist no tax on tips or whatever. But even if they do, compared to the size of the $4 trillion that is going to the wealthiest, it's peanuts. So you've got that. You've got massive, massive,

cuts to Medicaid, which you're talking some 70 to 80 million people, many seniors, I don't know if people realize this, many seniors who are in long-term care, it's Medicaid that pays for that. Millions of births in this country paid for by Medicaid. Many rural hospitals are utterly

dependent on this program. I saw a stat yesterday about the number of hospitals, rural hospitals in Alabama alone that would close were in the double digits. So huge cuts to social safety net programs, massive giveaway to the rich population.

the richest man on the planet, running the government to his own benefit. And I just always think it's important as we go through all of these individual developments of he said this and he did that, and here's where they're cutting now, and Social Security Administration is being hacked by 50%. I think it's really important to zoom out and try to understand what the big picture is.

As Sager says, this isn't about cutting spending. We know that because of the bill that just passed the House with every Republican supporting it, say for Thomas Massey and Donald Trump behind it, okay, which would massively increase the debt and the deficit.

This is about Elon's ideology and personal goals. Number one, I think, you know, as best I can tell, he wants to suck up as much data from the federal government to feed his own AI to try to win that competition. Number two, he wants to use the federal government as his own personal piggy bank for his goal of getting to Mars and making humans an interplanetary species. Number three, I think Sagar was right the other day, he wants to be a trillionaire.

And so the plan here, which has been laid out by, you know, Curtis Yarvin and discussed by J.D. Vance and Peter Thiel's behind it and Mark Andreessen as well, is to have Elon be the CEO dictator of the country and Trump to be the chairman of the board. And I don't think we've ever seen a clearer image of.

of exactly that dynamic as we saw in this cabinet meeting this week. That's exactly the dynamic that was playing out there where it's really Elon making the decisions and yes, Trump gets to have some sign off and gets to be involved, but Elon is really the one who has taken charge. And of course, if you are taking the power of the purse from Congress,

if you are completely consolidating power within the executive branch, if you are flirting with, I mean, now they are defying court orders, but they're not in technical open defiance of court orders. But if you're flirting with that, all of those things are unconstitutional. All

All of that is illegal and unconstitutional. Now, how this is all going to play out in the court system, how the Supreme Court is going to respond when their own legitimacy is on the line, that also remains to be seen. But I also just before we move on to the next next side, I have to also like clarify that Elon with this Ebola thing, it's not even true that they turned the funds back on.

Yes, those funds are frozen, as are almost all the funds, actually probably literally all the funds coming out of USAID, again, in defiance of a court order, in defiance of even the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had put out some waivers for things like PEPFAR.

And Doge came in over his head. This is a dynamic Ryan was talking about yesterday. It's still frozen. So it's not even the agency heads that have control here. It literally is Elon Musk and Doge, etc. But Ebola prevention has not actually been turned back on.

And of course, this is not the only time when they've accidentally fired something that was really or frozen something that was absolutely critical. There was the people who were watching bird flu that they had to scramble and rehire. There was the nuclear safety guy that they had to scramble and rehire. There were some transportation safety people. There were some FDA people. All

of these big mistakes that if you saw them unfolding in any other part of government, Elon would be calling for these people. Look at how incompetent they are. Look at how poorly they're doing their job. They would be fired immediately. But no, in fact, Ebola prevention aid has not been restored. It continues to be frozen, as is almost everything in USAID.

Ready to celebrate the magic of live music? South by Southwest Music Festival returns to Austin, Texas this March 10th through the 15th with a fresh lineup of legendary and rising talent. Join a global community of music lovers, artists, industry professionals, and creatives at the 2025 South by Southwest Music Festival.

With hundreds of showcasing artists performing across six days in over 50 venues, Discovery is right around the corner at South by Southwest. Explore the lineup at SXSW.com.

It's time to put America first when it comes to spectrum airwaves. Dynamic spectrum sharing is an American innovation developed to meet American needs, led by American companies and supported by the U.S. military who use the spectrum to defend the homeland. It maximizes a scarce national resource, wireless spectrum, to protect national security and deliver greater competition and lower costs without forcing the U.S. military to waste $120 billion relocating critical defense systems.

America won't win by letting three big cellular companies keep U.S. spectrum policy stuck in the past, hoarding spectrum for their exclusive use to limit competition here at home while giving Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE a big leg up overseas. For America to lead, federal policymakers must build on the proven success of U.S. spectrum sharing to ensure national security, turbocharge domestic manufacturing, rural connectivity, and create American jobs. Let's keep America at the forefront of global wireless leadership. Learn more at SpectrumFuture.com.

This is Jenny Garth from I Do Part 2. Everyone's talking about GLP-1s like Ozempic, Semaglutide. With future health, you can find out if they're right for you too. Just go to tryfh.com. That's tryfh.com and find out if weight loss meds are right for you in just three minutes. Try FH.

FutureHealth is not a healthcare services provider. Meds are prescribed at provider's discretion. Results may vary. Sponsored by FutureHealth.

The only thing I would quibble with there is I think that Elon's agenda is not nearly as aligned as you may think with Curtis Yarvin and or Peter Thiel slash JD Vance. I think all of these are a little bit more distinct. Elon is like a power in and of itself who probably likes the idea of the so-called dictator. But if you really think about the CEO dictator model that Yarvin and others had put out, it's –

I think that's true. I mean because you haven't talked about the rage, like retire all government employees. Let me explain it. So rage is not a Javier Millet style thing.

thing. Raige is about deplacing the current regime by putting in a new regime. I don't think Elon wants a new regime. Right. That's kind of the point that I'm trying to explain. As in Steve Bannon, one of the reasons Steve Bannon is against the administrative state is because he thinks that the administrative state, as it's currently constituted, is against the MAGA ideal. But Steve Bannon would not be against the idea of a MAGA administrative state.

Neither – I cannot speak for the J.D. or any of these other people. I don't think so just in terms of the stuff that they have said previously about government. I don't even think Yarvin would necessarily disagree with what I'm saying. I do think that Elon is against an administrative state, period, and is much more in line with the privatized nature of where things are currently headed.

And so that's where you can come at the same problem, attack vector, and say, we need to get rid of the current government employees. But then from there is the divergence point. And this is what Steve Bannon ultimately correctly sees, is he sees this as an attempt to basically privatize out all of these things

so that you can have no regulatory regime, as opposed to, I would say, people probably more like Curtis and JD or other figures who would swim in these waters who would say, no, we actually need our own government mechanism to enforce our abilities and or control over the broader market. So that's why I think it's still important to say why Elon is really his own strain of whatever the hell is going on. I think that's...

Probably true. I think he's less like a true believer in the Dark Enlightenment and, you know, the neo-reactionary movement. And more finds it to be a very useful construct. Yeah, exactly. For his own power grab. Yeah, I think that's true. But, I mean, in the end, whether he's like a true believer or whether he's just using that ideology for his own ends, the outcome is basically the same. And you're right. Elon doesn't want there to be... He is...

I think it's closest to say he's an anarcho-capitalist. I mean, he believes that every function of the government should effectively be privatized. And that relates more to this other related idea of network states where they want to have these, you know, mini states and they're already like, you know, there already are some of these cities that are set up this way that are basically private corporations and they are completely privatized.

And when Elon says he thinks every single federal government worker should be out of the public sector and into what he describes as more productive private sector jobs, what you're describing is an anarcho-capitalist ideology, which is distinct from, you know,

Russ vote, I think you would put more in the like libertarian category where he wants- He's a complicated one too. He wants, you know, libertarians want a small state, but they still think like, oh, we should have a military and a police force and a court system to enforce private property rights. You know, anarcho-capitalists truly believe in privatizing literally everything, including security forces. And Elon appears to be much more in that camp. And as the richest man on the planet, even though he himself was the recipient of massive

government aid, Washington Post did a great report on this, at critical times. Like Tesla and SpaceX probably would not even exist today were it not for loans and subsidies and the government ignoring him missing milestones at SpaceX and a massive almost $500 million loan that came into Tesla under the Obama administration at an absolutely critical time. So even though he personally has been a massive

of government support, he wants to, number one, make sure his competitors don't benefit from that same support. Number two, that the government is not powerful enough, that none of these regulatory agencies are powerful enough to rein in his power. And number three, to be able to have access

personally and have the U.S. taxpayer backstop his own net worth and fund his own ambitions. So if these ideas that are floating out there that have become very popular, like the neo-reactionary movement, the Curtis Yarvin CEO dictator with the chairman of the board thing, whether it's that, whether it's the network state idea, whatever is out there in the ether that he can grab onto and

to pursue his own personal ideological interest goals. And, you know, one other thing, and I'm sorry I'm going on here, but I think it's important for understanding his ideology as well, is he also is a believer in simulation theory. Like, I think it's... And I think that's... Is he? Is Elon a simulation theory guy? I believe he is. That might be the lowest IQ thing that he does. I think that...

Part of how he sees himself is that we all, including the President of the United States, including all those cabinet secretaries, we are quote unquote NPCs, non-playable characters. And he is Ready Player One.

He is the hero of this story. He is the only acting person with agency who is acting and creating this grand adventure of humanity. And if you internalize that, that that's the way he thinks of himself, I think his actions and his willingness, again, to do whatever

Whether it's he doesn't care about the kids in Africa with HIV, he doesn't care about the thousands of veterans who've already been fired, he certainly doesn't care about the laws or the Constitution or whatever. He is the ready player one who is going to save humanity by bringing us to Mars, and anything is justified in pursuit of that quest. Yeah.

Well, it does remind me that the movie is also very good. Let's continue here, shall we? Let's put the next one up on the screen. This one is about Medicare, and we're going to go ahead and play. That was just reaffirming what you were saying about Ebola. Oh, yeah. Let's get to the Medicare part because this is also important for what the future of Doge and all of that will look like in terms of whether they're actually going to be even able to achieve any cuts. Let's take a listen.

Bill that passed last night aims to cut $2 trillion. Can you guarantee that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security will not be touched? Yeah, I mean, I have said it so many times, you shouldn't be asking me that question. Okay, this will not be read my lips. It won't be read my lips anymore.

We're not going to touch it. Now, we are going to look for fraud. I'm sure you're OK with that. Like people that shouldn't be on people that are illegal aliens and others, criminals in many cases. And that's with Social Security. We have a lot of people. You see that immediately when you see people that are 200 years old that are being sent checks for Social Security.

All right. So there we go. Trump continues to say that he will not cut Medicare. As we said, the problem is that the current spending bill aims to cut $2 trillion. It's going to be a difficult one. I mean, I was talking with a tax expert just yesterday, and we were like, okay, so how do we even get to $4.5 trillion if we're doing no tax on tips, no Social Security? We're also raising the SALT cap up to 20%, which is not even what the New York delegation and all those other people are doing.

and you extend all of it. It doesn't pencil, like period. The math does not math. And I'm not even talking about Medicare or Medicaid. That's leaving all that stuff untouched. So either they're lying or they're going to have to cut something else. I'm going to probably bet on lying. Speaker Johnson yesterday was on TV and was asked specifically about this. He says, yes, we won't cut Medicare or touch Medicare literally at all. But, you know, we'll see. As I predicted. Medicaid is the one that's really on the talking block. Sorry, Medicaid.

Well, Johnson is out there saying we're going to do work requirements. Yes, if you're, you know, a single mom or whatever, it'll be there for you. But if you are able bodied, you're going to be kicked off. I mean, they are they are talking about significant Medicaid cuts and the numbers just I mean, the numbers just don't add up to make that level of cuts with adding money to the defense budget, by the way.

And most of the federal government is military spending, health care spending, Social Security. And the bucket that they have targeted in particular for massive cuts is Medicaid. Now, when I hear Trump saying that in that particular soundbite, what I hear is him giving himself some wiggle room of, no, we're not going to cut benefits. Oh, but we're going to root out fraud. And I think that's going to be the fig leaf.

of we're not really cutting benefits to people who deserve it, but they're still kicking millions of people off of Medicaid that they decide are undeserving or they decide are quote unquote fraudulent because that's certainly the direction that things are headed in right now.

Honestly, though, that's going to be a much more difficult fight, right? Because welfare reform, whatever you think of it, was very popular in 1996. So work requirements in general from the polling and all that I've seen are extremely popular. That would be an interesting way for them to square the circle. But I'm not yet sure. There was all these politics back in the day called dole politics. Absolutely fascinating if people want to go back.

And look, let's just look in terms of any potential blowback and what all this is. Let's put this up there from NBC News, guys. This is A6. Some House Republicans are currently hitting the brakes on town halls after some of the blowback over the Trump cuts to try and avoid some of those scenes that we've seen previously. And Crystal, you have one from your own district.

which you're going to set up and tell us about. This is the district I actually ran for Congress in. They've since redistricted it, so I'm not technically don't live in this district anymore, but this is Republican Congressman Rob Whitman. He's really tried to position himself. He's a real kind of like backbencher, tries not to say too much.

tries not to really rock the boat, et cetera, but just goes along with the party line. He had, it wasn't even him. One of his staffers had some remote town hall and it was flooded with, you know, ultimately there were some hundred constituents there. It's a very mostly like rural part of Virginia. It's quite Republican. You know, he usually gets reelected pretty easily, pretty handily, et cetera. And they were quite upset that he wasn't there

and demanding him to show up and answer their questions. Let's take a listen. Where's Rob Whitman? Where's Rob Whitman? Where's Rob? Where's Rob Whitman? Where's Rob Whitman?

So flooding in even when he's not going to be there. And I predicted that they would just stop doing town halls. And I think that is certainly what's going to ultimately happen here, because I think some of the early ones, these were Republicans in super red districts that thought they would be safe. But obviously, even in very red districts, you still have Democrats, right? You still have in almost every district in the country, you still have a pretty significant number of Democrats who can show up.

And, you know, I have no doubt like there's been a lot of Republican, oh, well, these are just astroturfed and they're just, you know, being organized to show up. I don't doubt that that's the case, that MoveOn and Indivisible and these other organizations and even just the local Democratic Party organizations are organizing people to go to these town halls.

But that was the same case during the Tea Party era. And there was a lot of Democratic cope at that time as well about the way this was funded by the Koch network, et cetera, et cetera. That was all true. But you have to have people who are upset and energized enough to listen when you send out your email blast saying show up at this town hall. And it takes extraordinary times for people to break out of whatever their normal routine is and

and show up at a congressional town hall to yell at their member of Congress. So I wouldn't dismiss it just because, yeah, of course it's organized and there's involvement from these activist groups. There still is a reflection here of genuine base energy. And when you're talking about a midterm election in particular that

ends up really, really mattering. And that's certainly what we saw in the Tea Party era. Look, obviously they're being funded and or organized. It's like, okay, welcome to politics. That's how it all works. By that definition, the entire Trump campaign, half of which was privatized by Elon, was privately, you know, was organized, right? To get out and vote. Okay, well, he still won, right? So are we going to say that it was fake? Obviously not, right? This is one of those where you're exactly right. Back in the day, it was such a democratic talking point. I can't even still remember. I can still remember. They were like,

The Tea Party was fake. It was all funded by the Koch brothers. I actually, I went to college here at that time, and I just remember all of the protesters flooding in from across the country. Did somebody pay for their transportation by busing or whatever? Yeah, maybe.

Did that mean that they were any less activated and or organized whenever they went home to get people to vote for them? Absolutely not. These people were diehard. They would have paid for it if they could have, or they would have been at home cheering it on on TV. So just so people understand, like, just because you fund something and bring people here and try and bring it in, it does not make it fake per se. It's still a reflection of something. So I would very much caution Republicans from trying to get themselves out of like, oh, the big money groups are—

are paying for it. I'm like, yeah, well, that's what they always do. But you've got to have something to activate, you know, to be able, you have to have somebody there to be ready to organize. You can't just, you know, create it out of very thin air. So caution there for Republicans definitely could continue to be a problem.

Ready to celebrate the magic of live music? South by Southwest Music Festival returns to Austin, Texas this March 10th through the 15th with a fresh lineup of legendary and rising talent. Join a global community of music lovers, artists, industry professionals, and creatives at the 2025 South by Southwest Music Festival.

With hundreds of showcasing artists performing across six days in over 50 venues, Discovery is right around the corner at South by Southwest. Explore the lineup at SXSW.com.

It's time to put America first when it comes to spectrum airwaves. Dynamic spectrum sharing is an American innovation developed to meet American needs, led by American companies and supported by the U.S. military who use the spectrum to defend the homeland. It maximizes a scarce national resource, wireless spectrum, to protect national security and deliver greater competition and lower costs without forcing the U.S. military to waste $120 billion relocating critical defense systems.

America won't win by letting three big cellular companies keep U.S. spectrum policy stuck in the past, hoarding spectrum for their exclusive use to limit competition here at home while giving Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE a big leg up overseas. For America to lead, federal policymakers must build on the proven success of U.S. spectrum sharing to ensure national security, turbocharge domestic manufacturing, rural connectivity, and create American jobs. Let's keep America at the forefront of global wireless leadership. Learn more at SpectrumFuture.com.

Hi, this is Jenny Garth from I Do Part 2. Who do you know on ozempic or semaglutide right now? Everyone, right? These game-changing weight loss meds are everywhere. And future health makes it easy to get started. Find out if weight loss meds are right for you in just three minutes at tryfh.com.

Future Health is not a healthcare services provider. Meds are prescribed at provider's discretion. Results may vary. Sponsored by Future Health.

Turning now to Elon Musk and a potential interview situation coming up, which I think all of us would like to see. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. Elon responding to a video claiming that he should go on Jon Stewart's show replied saying, I will do it if the show airs unedited. Daily Show quote tweeted and said, at Elon Musk, we would be delighted. So a

That could be very interesting. - He did add one more condition after this. - What was that? - He was like, oh and it has to stream also on X. Which feels to me like he's kind of trying to get out of it. He's trying to throw up enough barriers. - Oh that's interesting, right. Because from a copyright perspective, that would be probably really difficult. We're dealing with Comedy Central here, which is like archaic and stupid.

the way that they handle their copyright stuff. So maybe that could be the way that he'll get out of it. Let's discuss that after though we see how Jon Stewart's been talking about Elon lately. Let's take a listen. And 10 is all of them, right? It would be embarrassing if it was a small drop in the bucket and that the American people didn't expect that we should negotiate for all drugs because we've already paid for it with our subsidies. It's fine.

So he got so mad, he literally busted a cup in his own hands. It was a good segment. It was one of his better ones, actually. I think John's back in form. He is, yeah. He's meeting the moment. I obviously became a fan during the Bush administration, and that's when I think he really became like,

A singular and very important force because he kind of did what we do but before its time almost 20 years ago where he would both call out Fox and MSNBC and CNN, ridicule kind of the mainstream media, but directly take like a very hard line against Bush and Cheney and a lot of the other bullshit claims.

And he was really good in the Obama years too by basically countering not only like Tea Party idiocy from time to time, but he would give it to Obama and Nancy Pelosi and them just as much. And so I do feel like he's really made for this moment kind of to just ridicule everything. It makes sense that he had to come back for right now.

Yeah. And the most of that segment was focused on like, hey, if you want to cut, here's a bunch of places you actually could like tax subsidies for the rich and oil and gas companies or the defense budget. Here's, you know, like all kinds of places where if you're actually serious about this, let's do it. And it was very effective, which is why I think Elon felt the need to jump in and, you know, pretend like he's going to do this interview, which I don't think is going to happen.

But we'll see. Somebody on Twitter was saying this might be another like, you know, how Elon was. Yeah, Elon and Mark Zuckerberg were supposedly going to fight. And then, of course, that never came to fruition. If he does, I mean, I would absolutely love to see it. Jon Stewart is a great interviewer, you know, underrated interviewer. That was one of the best parts of his Apple show was all these people would sit down with him. Oh, it's Jon Stewart, you know, the V.A. secretary or whatever. And he would just rake them across the cold.

or Janet Yellen. I mean, all these high-level people. And he comes in prepared and serious and is a very smart person and was able to do a very effective job. So I think it would be very interesting and quite a... I think it would be quite good head-to-head combat for us to all watch, which is why I don't really think that Elon is going to go forward with it. All right. Well, we will see, shall we? It'll be exciting. Thank you.

Ready to celebrate the magic of live music? South by Southwest Music Festival returns to Austin, Texas this March 10th through the 15th with a fresh lineup of legendary and rising talent. Join a global community of music lovers, artists, industry professionals, and creatives at the 2025 South by Southwest Music Festival.

With hundreds of showcasing artists performing across six days in over 50 venues, Discovery is right around the corner at South by Southwest. Explore the lineup at SXSW.com.

It's time to put America first when it comes to spectrum airwaves. Dynamic spectrum sharing is an American innovation developed to meet American needs, led by American companies and supported by the U.S. military who use the spectrum to defend the homeland. It maximizes a scarce national resource, wireless spectrum, to protect national security and deliver greater competition and lower costs without forcing the U.S. military to waste $120 billion relocating critical defense systems.

America won't win by letting three big cellular companies keep U.S. spectrum policy stuck in the past, hoarding spectrum for their exclusive use to limit competition here at home while giving Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE a big leg up overseas. For America to lead, federal policymakers must build on the proven success of U.S. spectrum sharing to ensure national security, turbocharge domestic manufacturing, rural connectivity, and create American jobs. Let's keep America at the forefront of global wireless leadership. Learn more at SpectrumFuture.com.

When it comes to playtime, never let your squad down. Unlock elite gaming tech at Lenovo.com. Push your gameplay beyond performance with 13th Gen Intel Core processors. Upgrade to smooth, high-quality streaming with Intel Wi-Fi 6E. And maximize game performance with enhanced overclocking. Win the tech search and head to Lenovo.com. Lenovo. Lenovo.