Atlantic Leak Reveals Trump Admin's Foreign Policy Mindset; Appeals Court Extremely Skeptical of Trump's El Salvador Deportation Powers; Israel's Horrific Crimes in the Last 24 Hours
Trump administration officials planned their bombing of Yemen over a now-leaked Signal group chat, revealing the DC consensus on warmongering. Then: the DC Appeals Court voiced extreme skepticism over Trump's policy of deporting people to prison in El Salvador without due process. Finally: Israel continues to kill journalists and countless numbers of Palestinians in Gaza while the U.S. makes combating antisemitism a priority.
-----------------------------
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, Trump national security officials planned the granular details of the U.S. bombing campaign of Yemen, not on official classified channels, but rather on the popular messaging app Signal.
Before they began planning that bombing attack on that platform, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, for some reason, added to their group one of the journalists most responsible for the most frauds of the last 20 years, as well as some of the most baseless attacks on Donald Trump himself, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic and former IDF prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg.
And he added him to that group, that planning group of a sensitive top secret attack all without any communications with Goldberg about why he was being added to that top secret planning group and apparently with no knowledge that he had been.
Goldberg stayed quiet as he followed the group.
Mostly, he says, because he did not really believe it was a real chat.
Why would you believe that somebody just arbitrarily added you to a chat planning a U.S. attack on a foreign country in granular detail at the top secret level?
He discovered that it was in fact real only when public reports of the U.S. bombing campaign on Yemen demonstrated that those bombings happened at exactly the time and in exactly the places that Trump's top officials planned in that group that they would be.
Goldberg today wrote about all this in The Atlantic and published most, though not all, of the chats.
While many are focusing on the obvious national security breach and recklessness involved in Adding an anti-Trump Atlantic editor to a highly sensitive chat that could put American service members at risk, there was actually a debate in that group over whether the U.S. should bomb Yemen at all, with Vice President J.D. Vance more or less alone, arguing it was a, quote, what he called mistake.
A view that was quickly rejected and overwhelmed by those eager to start bombing.
But we'll look at what we know from these chats to gain insight into the foreign policy ideology and mindset dominating Trump's thus far quite militaristic foreign policy.
After a federal district court judge ordered the Trump administration to cease deporting Venezuelans and other foreign nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador, at least without first providing them some due process for the accused to contest or disprove the accusations against them, the Trump Justice Department appealed that injunction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, generally considered the highest appeals court right below the Supreme Court.
But if the oral argument held this afternoon, the appellate judges on that court were openly hostile, aggressively hostile at times to most, if not all, of the Trump's lawyers' reasons as to why no due process is required before shipping somebody off to a foreign land to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
We'll report on that hearing and the broader legal and constitutional issues raised by this increasingly acrimonious fight over the Constitution and due process.
And then finally, I would have said yesterday that Israel has committed seemingly every atrocity and war crime in Gaza that would be possible over the last 15 months all paid for by the American taxpayer and armed by the U.S. government.
But over the past 24 hours, they somehow outdid themselves and reached new lows.
First, Israel targeted And then slaughtered two young Palestinian journalists who have been among the most effective in showing the world the realities of Gaza over the last 15 months, reporting they continue to do quite bravely despite an endless stream of death threats from the IDF, meaning they would be killed if they continued to speak out.
Then, perhaps even more shockingly, the producer of the documentary on Israel and Palestine that just won an Oscar at last month's Academy Awards ceremony Was attacked and almost fatally lynched by Israeli settlers, not in Gaza, but in the West Bank.
Settlements that the entire world considers to be illegal, and the settlers illegally occupying that land.
And as the ambulance sped to a hospital to try and save this Oscar-winning filmmaker's life, the IDF dragged him from the ambulance and then arrested him.
Not the settlers who beat him nearly to death, but to the Oscar-winning filmmaker who had just been near fatally beaten.
There are simply no limits or standards of law and morality the Israeli government recognizes at this point.
And if you're an American citizen, you are absolutely responsible for everything that is being done because it's being done with your money, your resources, your arms and weapons, and your diplomatic protection without which Israel could not carry out these atrocities.
We'll tell you about all that before we get to that.
We have a few programming notes.
We are, I don't know if you heard this, encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, you can follow the programs you most like to watch on this platform.
And then once you do that, if you activate notifications, as we hope you will, it means that any of the programs that you watch on this platform, that you follow, begin broadcasting live here.
You'll be immediately notified by email or text, however you want.
You just click on the link, begin watching the show live.
Really helps the live viewing numbers of the Rumble program and therefore the free speech cause of Rumble itself.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really does help spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, as independent journalists and as independent media, we rely on our members and subscribers to make this show and our journalism possible.
All of that comes from members of our local community.
If you want to join, you get access to a wide range of exclusive benefits, interactive features that allow us to communicate with you throughout the week.
We put a lot of original exclusive video content there that we don't have time to put here.
We take questions and answer.
We do a Q&A on every...
One of these shows, Friday Night, and those questions come exclusively from our local members.
We put written, professionalized transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We put them there.
And most of all, it's the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on our Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
A major reason I found myself interested in and even seeing potential in the Trump movement as it has evolved over the last eight years is that they had adopted and begun to advocate a foreign policy that they were describing as both anti-war and anti-intervention.
It included critiques that the United States has involved itself in far too many wars, especially in the Middle East, including ones where our direct interest and security...
We're not really at stake.
Donald Trump prided himself on the actual fact that he did not involve the U.S. in any new wars in his first term and said he was determined to continue that.
And it was his second term that he wanted to be remembered by history as a peacemaker, not somebody who started wars, but as someone who ended them.
Talked often about ending the war in Ukraine and Russia.
He patted himself on the back quite a bit for the ceasefire deal that he engineered before he was inaugurated in Gaza.
And yet, over the past two months since Trump has been inaugurated, we have seen a very bellicose, very militaristic, and at times, war-creating foreign policy.
They're definitely trying to stop the war in Ukraine and Russia.
I just believe they deserve a lot of credit for that.
I've given them a lot of credit for that.
But at the same time, they not only stood by and gave the green light, but encouraged Israel to restart The destruction of Gaza, even though there's very little left in Gaza to destroy.
In other words, they unraveled their own ceasefire deal that they themselves negotiated and facilitated by demanding that Hamas and the Gazans abandon it and release all hostages immediately instead of in accordance with the schedule set out in that ceasefire.
AND EVEN THE MOST PRO-ISRAEL VOICES IN THE U.S.
AND IN ISRAEL HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT NANYAHU TOLD HIS RIGHT WING CABINET MEMBERS FROM THE BEGINNING, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE CEASE-FIRE.
WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO THE FIRST STAGE.
ONCE WE GET SOME HOSTAGES BACK, WE'RE GOING TO RESUME THE WAR.
WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THE GAZANS OUT OF GAZA AND TIE And then, of course, you have the Trump administration's—you really could call it a new war because it stopped finally under— Biden, once he was on his way out during the transition, which was the bombing campaign that Biden carried out throughout all of 2024,
constantly dropping weapons and bombs on the Houthis in Yemen, often doing so every day.
Trump criticized Joe Biden for it, saying there's no need to drop bombs on Yemen.
And yet, way earlier this month, the Trump administration announced very proudly, very— That they were not only bombing Yemen, but doing so in a very aggressive way.
That they would be a not one or two-time bombing campaign, but a sustained campaign.
And that's now what they're doing.
They're carrying out massive bombing campaigns all throughout Yemen, killing many civilians, targeting Houthis and the like.
Exactly the policy that Biden carried out for the same exact reasons, with the same exact rationale.
Otherwise, we've gone over before, and we've read you the accounts.
At least Biden had the excuse when he was doing it, when Trump was criticizing him and when Biden was doing it, that the Houthis were attacking American ships in the Red Sea and elsewhere.
Once there was a ceasefire deal and Israel was no longer bombing Gaza, the Houthis stopped their attacks.
They said they would and they did.
And it was only once the Israelis blockaded humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, as the agreement called for, did they say, we're going to attack Israeli ships, Israel flag ships only until they allow the humanitarian aid into Gaza as required by that agreement.
So they weren't even attacking American ships at the time this bombing campaign was initiated.
So I agreed with Trump's criticism of Biden, but at least Biden actually had an argument pertaining to the United States, whereas Trump doesn't.
Longtime editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, which has been one of the most anti-Trump magazines in the country.
It was ground zero for some of the most deranged Russiagate hysteria.
It was Jeffrey Goldberg who, during the 2020 election, claimed anonymously that Trump had disparaged the soldiers who died fighting as losers and suckers.
And then in this election, he...
He was the one who kept quoting General Milley and others, and General Kelly, claiming that Trump had said he admired Hitler and was a fascist.
I'm talking about one of the most unscrupulous operatives in D.C. over the last 20 to 25 years, as well as one of the most vociferously anti-Trump ones.
He wrote an article earlier today in The Atlantic, which, by the way, is owned by the billionaire heiress.
Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs, who inherited his billions.
She became a major donor to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and she runs this magazine where he works.
And here you see the headline of his article, the Trump administration accidentally texted me.
It's war plans.
And here's what he writes, quote, the world found out shortly before 2 p.m. Eastern time on March 15th that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however, This is going to require some explaining.
On Tuesday, March 11th, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz, the name of the Trump National Security Advisor.
I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security advisor and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine or Iran or something, some other important matter.
Two days later, Thursday at 4.28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a signal chat chat group.
It was called the, quote, Houthi PC Small Group.
A message to the group from Michael Waltz read as follows, team, establishing a principals group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours.
My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a Tiger team at deputies and agency chief of staff level, following up from the meeting in the sit room, the situation room this morning, for action items, and we'll be sending out that later this evening.
The term Principles Committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national security officials, including the Secretaries of Defense, State, and the Treasury, as well as the Director of the CIA.
It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that I have never been invited to a White House Principles Committee meeting and that in my years of reporting on national security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.
The principles had apparently assembled, and all 18 individuals were listed as members of this group.
I appeared on my own screen as J.G. At 8.05 a.m. on Friday, March 14th, Michael Waltz texted the group, quote, team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the president's guidance this morning in your high-side inboxes.
High-side in government parlance refers to classified computer and communication systems.
Now, this is shocking, shocking that it's not just One of a standard classified conversation.
All conversations in Washington are classified.
This is as sensitive as it gets.
They are talking here about a surprise attack on a country that the United States was not bombing.
And they were talking about the most precise, detailed operational aspects of this bombing campaign.
Where they were going to bomb, exactly what time they were gonna start bombing, which military weapons they were gonna use to bomb.
Obviously, anybody who gets this information and leaked it could sabotage the attack or put service members who are carrying it out in obvious danger.
If the Houthis know exactly where planes are coming and what targets they're gonna use, they could do all sorts of things to sabotage it.
To put Jeffrey Goldberg into a top-secret meeting, even though he has no top-secret security clearance, seemingly by mistake, but who knows?
That is incompetence and a security breach of the most extreme kind you can imagine.
But that's something for other people to worry about.
I'm not particularly concerned with national security breaches like that.
I think way too much is classified, although even I, generally on the far end of absolutism when it comes to state and government transparency, recognized and I've always said that, of course, there are some things that ought to be secret, some things that ought to be hidden, and one of those is troop movements.
This would be like if you planned D-Day and you accidentally included Nazi Sympathizing or communist, sympathizing or anti-American journalists in your planning meeting.
And they learn the details in advance of the invasion of Normandy.
I mean, it's on that level of breach.
But I'll let others worry about that.
All of Washington is a flutter about that sort of thing.
They pretend to love classified information in its sanctity when it suits them, although they leak classified information all the time when they proceed back.
What I'm more interested in is the debate that ensued, the conversation about the bombing attack and who said what to get a glimpse into the mindset of Trump's national security team.
So here's what Goldberg wrote, quote, The account labeled J.D. Vance responded at 8-16.
Quote, Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan, but I think we are making a mistake.
And then Prince's Goldberg says Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.
The Vance account goes on to state, Quote, 3% of U.S. trade runs through the Suez.
40% of European trade does.
There's a real risk that the public doesn't understand this or why it's necessary.
The strongest reason to do so is, as POTUS said, to send a message.
Now, Bye.
Now, on the one hand, this is not a very vehement objection.
He wasn't bounding the table and saying this is wrong and we cannot do this.
But you have to remember, J.D. Vance has a potentially purely empty and symbolic I think this is a mistake.
Because there's no real U.S. interests involved here.
We have a tiny amount.
Of shipping that goes to the Suez.
It's the Europeans who have enormous amounts and why we're out there demanding that Europe take responsibility for its own defense and that we not bear the brunt of it anymore.
Here we are about to do exactly that in a way that the public won't understand.
Now, I guess you might consider it a coincidence.
I don't.
That the position of the Houthis under Trump has been not that we're going to attack American ships, but that we're only going to attack Israeli ships.
To me, this is much more a bombing campaign designed to protect Israel than to protect the Europeans.
No one's going to say that.
No one's going to admit that.
But that's the truth.
And yet it was J.D. Vance, despite the extremely insignificant, almost trivial connection to U.S. interests, who stood up and said, this is wrong.
This is a mistake.
The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump's position on virtually any issue.
Quote, I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his matches on Europe right now.
There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices.
I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself, but there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.
So he was essentially saying, this is wrong, I'm against it, but at least let's wait a month so we can figure out what we're really doing here.
Like, why the urgency?
Why the immediacy?
AT 8:27 A MESSAGE ARRIVED FROM THE PETE HEGSETH ACCOUNT, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS AND FULLY SUPPORT YOUR RAISING WITH POTUS, IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE TOUGH TO KNOW HOW THEY PLAY OUT, THE ECONOMY, THE UKRAINE PEACE, GAZA, ET CETERA." I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what.
Nobody knows who the Houthis are, which is why we would need to stay focused on, one, Biden failed, and two, Iran funded.
In other words, they have no way to explain to the American people why bombing the Houthis is in their interest, why bombing Yemen is in their interest.
So Hex has the saying, let's just simplify it and just avoid the real reasons and just say Biden failed, even though Biden actually bombed Yemen continuously throughout 2024.
But this is always the Republican narrative.
The Democrats are weak.
They say Democrats and Biden were weak on Israel, even though the United States under Biden paid for Israel's entire war, funded and armed that war, diplomatically protected Israel every day at the UN.
It was Obama who signed a deal on his way out of office with Netanyahu to give the Israelis $38 billion in military aid over 10 years.
But of course, the Fox News Republican narrative always has to be, oh, the Democrats hate Israel.
Chuck Schumer, the highest-ranking Democrat, has a book out warning of the anti-Semitism crisis that has engulfed America and said, my job is to make sure the left stays pro-Israel.
The idea that the Democrats are weak on Israel or the Middle East or whatever is laughable.
It's a joke.
But Hexfeth is saying that's how we have to sell it to the public.
Biden failed, and let's scare them over the connection to Iran.
The Hegseth message goes on to state, quote, waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus.
Two immediate risks on waiting.
One, this leaks and we all looked indecisive.
Two, Israel takes an action first or a Gaza ceasefire falls apart.
And we don't get to start this on our own terms.
We can manage both.
We are prepared to execute.
And if I had final go or no-go vote, I believe we should.
This is not about the Houthis.
I see it as about two things.
One, restoring freedom of navigation, a core national interest.
And two, reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered.
But we can easily pause, and if I do so, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC, operational security.
I welcome other thoughts.
Very ironic that XF is promising 100% OPSEC, operational security, on this plan when they're all doing this planning in front of an anti-Trump journalist that they have no idea has been invited by the National Security Advisor into this group, unwittingly or otherwise.
Goldberg goes on, quote, it was the next morning, Saturday, March 15th, when the story became truly bizarre.
At 1144 a.m., the account labeled Pete Hegseth posted in Signal a, quote, team update.
I will not quote from this update or from certain other subsequent texts.
The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East Central Command's area of responsibility.
What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this signal conversation, is that the Hegseth Post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information I will say a prayer for victory.
Vance wrote.
Two other users subsequently added prayer emojis.
According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence at 1:45 p.m.
Eastern Time.
So I waited in my car in a parking lot of a supermarket.
If the signal chat was real, I reasoned Houthi targets would soon be bombed.
At about 1:55 I checked X and searched Yemen.
Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa.
Which is how he knew that that chat was authentic.
Now with the story, everyone's being asked about it.
Absolutely nobody is denying that the chat is authentic.
When the State Department spokesperson was asked why this happened, she simply said, we're not commenting on it.
At Donald Trump's press appearance, which to his credit he does essentially every day, in the Roosevelt Room, a reporter, in a very weird, timid way, asked Trump about this story and Trump denied all knowledge of it.
Here's what he said.
Your reaction to the story of the Atlantic that said that some of your top accounting officials and aides have been discussing very sensitive material through Signal and included an Atlantic reporter for that.
What is your response to that?
I don't know anything about it.
I'm not a big fan of the Atlantic.
To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business.
I think it's not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.
You're saying that they had what?
They were using signal to coordinate on sensitive materials.
Having to do with what?
Having to do with what?
What were they talking about?
The Houthis.
The Houthis?
You mean the attack on the Houthis?
Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that.
I don't know anything about it.
You're telling me about it for the first time.
Any else?
I know I...
The Atlantic article came out, and obviously everybody in Washington and political circles was talking about it.
I don't doubt, actually, that Trump hasn't heard about it.
Sometimes he doesn't follow the news cycle all that closely.
But later after this, the White House put out a statement through Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary, saying President Trump has full and complete confidence in his national security advisor, Mike Walds, even though Mike Walds added a journalist, a hostile journalist to their planning for a new war.
And the I mean, that's illegal, by the way, to transmit classified information to someone not authorized to receive it.
Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, others in the Trump administration have said they will have zero tolerance for leaks of classified information.
They're lucky that Jeffrey Goldberg has a very similar foreign policy to people like Mike Waltz.
He's obviously in favor of the bombing of Yemen because it helps Israel, who's Foreign military he joined and served as a prison guard in an Israeli detention camp for Palestinians.
And he's been an advocate of the Iraq War, did more than anybody to spread the lie that Saddam Hussein was involved in al-Qaeda in order to justify that war.
So, obviously, it was safe in that sense because Jeffrey Goldberg was going to be a supporter of it.
He has a very similar worldview to Mike Waltz.
Both of them are standard GOP militarists and neocons.
But still, it's a gigantic mistake at best, a huge national security breach.
And had it been done with the wrong person, it could easily have put the lives of American troops in harm's way.
And why were they using Signal?
The government pays for extremely sophisticated.
Classified networks to talk about these sorts of things on.
And I consider Signal relatively safe from the commercial apps.
It's probably the safest.
It's the one I use when I'm having conversations that I don't want to be easily invaded, but it's far from invulnerable.
Here is Donald Trump.
In May of 2024, we showed you this a couple weeks ago when the campaign started to bomb Yemen, where he was talking to Tim Pool, and this was at a time that Biden was heavily bombing Yemen.
Obviously, now they never mention that because they want to pretend that they are doing something Biden was too scared to do or too wimpy to do, when in reality it's just a continuation of Biden's Middle East war and bombing campaign that went on for a full year.
And here's what...
Donald Trump, when he was running in May of 2024, told Tim Pool about what he thought about all that.
I look at your policies, I see secure the borders, bring jobs back.
I look at the Democrats and many Republicans and it's foreign war and foreign expansion.
What is that?
I think it's just a failed mentality.
It's crazy.
You can sell problems over a telephone.
Instead, they start dropping bombs.
I see recently they're dropping bombs all over Yemen.
You don't have to do that.
You can talk in such a way where they respect you and they listen to you.
Viktor Orban of Hungary, you know, the leader.
They call him a strong man.
Who cares if he's a strong man or not a strong man?
He's a very powerful guy.
He said the problem the world has is that Donald Trump is no longer president.
When he was president, China didn't play around.
Russia didn't play around.
Nobody played around.
And we had no problems.
Today, the whole world is on fire.
I heard that.
Here's the issue I have, which is, aside from the fact that there's no denying a gigantic gap Between what MAGA said the Trump administration would do if Trump won, what they said they wanted him to do when he won,
the way they self-identified, you saw that Tim Pool question, which was the Democrats are the party of war and intervention, and that seems to be what they want, and you want peace.
And Trump said, yeah, exactly, and a perfect example is Yemen.
Why are we bombing Yemen?
We shouldn't be bombing Yemen.
That was eight months ago.
And then Trump gets into office and less than two months later, he's bombing Yemen.
Are there very many MAGA advocates, MAGA influencers, Republican conservative pundits who are denouncing this?
There's a few, there's some, but not many.
And this is, you know, it's the same exact thing with the free speech issue.
You know, conservatives have probably been most contemptuous over the last decade of the attempt to limit free speech on campus in the name of protecting the sensibilities and creating safe spaces for various minority groups.
Trump gets into office.
One of his primary focuses is to eliminate anti-Semitism on college campuses.
To force Colombia to adopt a broader definition of anti-Semitism such that various criticisms of Israel are outlawed in the name of making Jewish students feel safe.
I'm not talking here about deporting protesters.
I'm talking about forcing speech codes on Colombia and other schools as well.
And you don't hear very many MAGA Advocates and pundits and employers and the like objected to that either, even though they've been waving the free speech banner incessantly for the last decade, especially when it comes to college campuses.
And this is something I've seen in my journalism career every single time there's a change in party control in the White House, every single time.
When people are out of power, they embrace values and beliefs.
And they appeal to constitutional principles and whatever that they use to condemn the opposite party when they're in power.
And then the minute their party gets into power, they forget about every single value they pretended to believe in, even if the president of their party is carrying on the same policies that they so vehemently denounced when carried out by the prior party.
The first time I ever saw that was the first time there was a party change in the White House while I was a journalist.
I started in 2005 condemning the war on terror, writing every day about the due process violations of the war on terror, the spying and privacy violations of American citizens, rendition and torture and imprisoning people with no trial.
And I built up a gigantic Democrat.
Party and liberal audience, along with a libertarian one.
And then the minute the Republicans are out of office and Barack Obama is elected in 2008, takes office in 2009, and continues to carry on many, in fact most, of the same war on terror policies that I had spent years viciously denouncing, huge numbers of Democrats in my audience were like, wait a minute.
I didn't really believe these things.
I was just using them to attack George Bush.
I don't want to hear these criticisms of Barack Obama.
And I lost a good part of my audience and kept a good part as well.
But you see it every single time there's a change of party control.
They either start overlooking the things that they say they find so objectionable or start twisting themselves into pretzels in order to justify it because now their side is doing it.
Trump undid his ceasefire, caused a new war in Gaza, even though there's barely left anything to destroy there that we're paying for in arming.
And he restarted a Biden bombing campaign in Yemen, two different wars in the Middle East.
While Israel bombed Syria and Lebanon, anarchy is part of those countries.
Basically have a giant Middle East war led by the United States and Israel.
Exactly the kind of wars that Trump for a decade has been promising to end.
And you barely hear protests from his followers, the people who said they believe in the MAGA vision, the MAGA mentality that he laid out, his criticism of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy, the constant permanent war from the deep state and the war machine and the military, all of that, military industrial complex, all that's gone.
Gone from the MAGA lips in order to cheer for what Trump is doing.
And I understand the temptation involved in that.
I understand that if you are happy that your president is doing a lot of what you hoped he would do, you're very reluctant to criticize him.
There's also a big economic factor in independent media, which is if you did build an audience based on Trump supporters, and then you turn around and start criticizing him sometimes.
You're going to alienate a lot of your audience, and a lot of people are afraid to do that.
They get imprisoned by the audience they've created because they purposely have set out to create a partisan pro-Trump or pro-Biden or pro-Kamala, whatever, pro-Bernie audience, and they're there to hear praise of those people, not to hear criticism of them.
But if you don't want to be a fraud, if you want to have any credibility in what you claim, Someday there's going to be a Democratic president.
If you stand up again and start screaming that you're anti-war and don't want foreign wars and don't like censorship, no one's going to take you seriously.
Why would they?
They just watched you do everything that you could possibly do to justify the very things you claim to denounce.
And I'm not saying there's all MAGA supporters doing that.
I know some who aren't.
I respect the ones who aren't.
But there's a lot of them.
And the fact that we're two months into the Trump administration and the only person in the group who said, wait a minute, why are we bombing Edmund?
Like, what does that have to do with America first and American interests?
Was J.D. Vance, someone who has no real authority.
And because of that, they ran roughshod over him and ignored him.
And by the end, he was saying, OK, I'm on board.
I won't express any disagreements publicly.
And I'm praying for the success of our mission.
And that...
It gives you a real sense of the very traditionally militaristic foreign policy that a lot of these longtime establishment Republicans who Trump built his cabinet with have, and it shows that they are really getting their way.
Music Do you know scammers can literally steal your home right out from under you?
The FBI calls it house stealing, and it's a growing real estate scam targeting American homeowners.
Here's how it works.
Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee, and then file it with your local recorder's office.
Just like that, your home title has been transferred out of your name.
They can then take out loans using your equity as collateral or even sell the property behind your back.
And you won't even know it's happening until you start getting collection or foreclosure notices.
Let me ask you, when was the last time you checked your home title?
If you're like me, the answer is never.
And that's exactly what these scammers are counting on.
That's why I trust Home Title Lock.
Their million dollar triple lock protection helps keep your home and equity safe.
Here's what you get.
Immediate 24-7 monitoring of your property.
So if there's any changes to your title, you get immediately notified.
Urgent alerts if there are any changes.
And if fraud should happen.
Then their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost.
And here's the best part.
I've teamed up with Home Title Lock to give you a free...
Title history report free so you can find out if you're already a victim and access to your personal title expert, a $250 value just for signing up.
Go to hometitlelock.com and use my promo code GG250 or click on the link in the description.
That's HometitleLock.com promo code GD250 to get the protection and peace of mind that you deserve.
Thank you.
It shouldn't surprise anybody that the Trump administration is deporting people who are in the country illegally, and they're doing so in an aggressive manner.
After all, if you had to pick one issue, one promise that was Trump's signature issue ever since he emerged on the political scene, it would be deporting illegal aliens.
That was the very first thing, in fact, he talked about when he descended.
That escalator in Trump Tower and gave the speech that propelled him to the start of the polls.
He has democratic mandate for it.
He was twice elected on that promise.
Polls show that they want that.
The reality is, though, despite all these showy controversies, these flamboyant distractions, there are no mass deportations taking place.
In fact, the rate of deportations under Trump is similar to even a little bit less than it was under Biden for this time period.
Part of the reason is because Trump has succeeded in virtually shutting the border.
So there aren't a lot of people entering the country illegally over the border.
And that counted for a lot of the deportations Biden has done.
But the numbers are nowhere near what anyone considered mass deportation in the scope of how many.
Illegal aliens that are in the United States.
Maybe that number will increase, but it's not now.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of urgency for that.
What we're getting instead are these sideshows.
Almost an exploitation of the promise to engage in mass deportation.
The first one was going to Columbia and targeting for deportation.
Not people who were in the United States illegally, but people who were in the United States very legally.
With student visas, with work visas, even with green cards, which are considered permanent residence status.
And they started deporting those people for the crime of protesting, you'll never guess which country, the one that half of the things we talk about as a nation end up focusing on, which is Israel.
So there's been a lot of deportation controversy surrounding deporting people in the U.S. legally.
Which has nothing to do with Trump's mass deportation promise.
And then you have a controversy that has been created not because Trump deported illegal aliens because deportation of illegal aliens is always meant not just in the United States but essentially every country in the democratic world taking people inside the country illegally and sending them back to their Country of origin, meaning where they're a citizen.
So if you deport Guatemalans, they get deported back to Guatemala.
If you deport illegal aliens who are Chinese, you deport them back to China, etc.
That's how deportation works.
That's what deportation means.
As we know, and we reported this last week at length, that's not what the Trump administration is doing.
Over the weekend, Last weekend, they took 237 Venezuelans who are not citizens of El Salvador, who have never been citizens of El Salvador.
Probably in every case, certainly most of them have never been to El Salvador, have nothing to do with El Salvador.
And they didn't deport them just to go back to their countries.
They purposely deported them to a third-party country that they have nothing to do with.
And pay the El Salvadoran government to put them into one of the world's worst, most notorious and abusive prisons, where the El Salvadoran president, essentially the dictator of El Salvador, said they would likely never leave.
They very well may never leave.
That's what that prison is for.
It's intended to completely strip people of their humanity, ignore human rights principles concerning prisons.
And the reason the Trump administration said they were doing that is not because they were in the country illegally, because nobody thinks that an appropriate or proportionate punishment to enter the United States legally is to send someone to life in prison in an El Salvador dungeon.
Especially people who have nothing to do with El Salvador.
The argument of the Trump administration as to why they sent them to prison was because they were all members of a violent Venezuelan drug gang.
And the problem with that claim is that they were accusing people of severe criminality, of being members of a violent drug gang, without any kind of evidentiary hearing where they were going to present the evidence demonstrating this accusation was true and giving the accused the opportunity to contest it.
So the Trump administration comes in and says, oh, look, he has a tattoo.
That is associated with this gang, and the person accused could say, no, actually, this is a tattoo of my favorite soccer team, Real Madrid, that is worldwide known, and the ICE agents misinterpreted it, which is exactly what happened, at least in one case.
So the problem here is not the Trump administration deporting elite aliens.
The problem is the Trump administration sending people to life in prison with zero due process, zero opportunity.
For them to contest the accusations against them, and as a result, all we're allowed to do is to piece together whatever evidence emerges in the media or from their families or from their lawyers and say, wait a minute, there's at least serious doubt about this person and this person and this person and this person.
It seems very unlikely that they're actually in Trente del Agua, but unfortunately, they didn't get a chance to, the government didn't have to prove anything.
And they didn't have a chance to disprove it.
They were just swept onto a plane and thrown into that prison.
Where now no U.S. court can even order them released because El Salvador and government can obviously ignore U.S. court orders.
And the Trump administration's response to all of this was once a judge, a federal district court judge, who as a reminder is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, Ordered an injunction against this program.
In fact, ordered those detainees not to be taken to El Salvador.
They took them to El Salvador anyway.
And the judge, as a result, extended his injunction on this program saying, you cannot deport people to life in prison without some kind of a hearing, without some opportunity for them to go to court and argue that they're being wrongfully accused.
White House media war, a MAGA social media war on the particular judge who ruled this way, calling him a far-left judge, even though he has so many hearings, some of which have been in favor of decisions which are far from left, some of which have been against the Mueller investigation, some of which have been in favor of Trump.
But the way our legal system works is that when you have a district judge who goes to Who rules on a certain case, if you want to sue the government, you can't go right to the Supreme Court.
You can't go to an appellate court.
You have to go to a federal district court judge.
That's where essentially, with very few exceptions, every legal case originates.
And federal district court judges absolutely have the power to enjoin the federal government from doing something.
In fact, conservatives constantly went into federal court.
Under the Clinton administration, under the Obama administration, under the Biden administration, and asked a district court judge to issue, and often succeeded in getting a district court judge to issue, an injunction blocking what the Biden administration wanted to do, not just for that district, but nationwide.
This idea that federal district court judges have no power or authority to enjoin the federal government from violating the law or violating the Constitution, nobody has ever thought this before.
This is always how our court system has worked, at least since Marbury v.
Madison, which resolved the question of who interprets the Constitution, and the courts did.
And ever since, that has been how our legal system has worked, and both sides have fully taken advantage of that by getting the other party's president's policies invalidated or declared unconstitutional.
And yet, there's outrage over this injunction from AP.
Trump assails judge who blocked deportation as the case heads to appeal.
Quote, President Donald Trump on Monday questioned the impartiality of the federal judge who blocked his plans to deport Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador.
Leveling his criticisms only hours before his administration will ask an appeals court to lift the judge's order.
Just after midnight, Trump posted a social media message calling for Chief Judge James Boesberg to be disbarred.
Trump reposted an article about Boesberg's attendance at a legal conference that purportedly featured, quote, anti-Trump speakers.
The judge, meanwhile, refused Monday to throw out his criminal order before an appeals court hearing for the case.
Bozberg ruled that the immigrants facing deportation must get an opportunity to challenge their designations as alleged members of the Trenda-Aragua gang.
That's all he's saying is, before you can put someone in prison based on the government's say-so, that these people are members of this violent gang that you've declared a terrorist organization, They have to have an opportunity to disprove that accusation.
The judge said there is a quote, strong public interest in preventing the mistaken deportation of people based on categories they have no right to challenge.
This case was appealed, that decision was appealed by the Trump Justice Department to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
We have 13 different Appellate courts in the United States.
The DC Court of Appeals is for DC.
It typically rules on federal government action.
It's considered the most prestigious court of all the Court of Appeals courts, right below the Supreme Court.
There's more betting for this court than any other.
And of the three judges who sat on the panel, one of them was a Trump appointee, Justin Walker.
I've attended a lot of oral arguments.
I've participated in a lot of oral arguments as a lawyer.
I've covered a lot of oral arguments as a journalist.
And honestly, I'm being serious here, I don't recall an oral argument where the judges on the panel were so blatantly and glaringly opposed to everything the government lawyers were saying.
Ask tough questions for each side.
A lot of times you walk away not really knowing how they're going to rule.
Sometimes you walk away knowing how they're going to rule because they were somewhat more assertive with one side than the other.
In this hearing, they just badgered the DOJ lawyer essentially rejecting aggressively everything that he was saying.
And then when the plaintiff's lawyers, the immigrant's lawyers from the ACLU and elsewhere stood up to speak, They basically kept saying, we already agree with you.
You don't really need to keep saying this.
Here is just one of the exchanges, courtesy of C-SPAN, which broadcast the hearing, that's where I listened to it, of this Trump appointee, Justin Walker, as he essentially sides with the Venezuelans about the right of due process.
This whole pre-deprivation thing, we were talking about people being sent to El Salvador.
And by the way, this is the for, one of the lawyers for the Venezuelan immigrants who are describing why due process is so urgent here.
And then you'll hear the judge This whole pre-deprivation thing, we're talking about people being sent to El Salvador, one of the worst prisons in the world, incommunicado.
They're essentially being disappeared.
President of El Salvador has now said maybe they're going to spend the rest of their lives there.
The government has provided zero ability to bring habeas.
The implications of not giving people a chance to contest it are extraordinary.
I mean, every religious and ethnic group in this country has at some point been tagged as associated with I mean, I just have to stop you.
You're not getting an argument from this bench so far today against the idea that every single member of this class can have an individualized habeas determination in front of an Article III judge to say, I'm innocent.
But it's really an extraordinary thing that's happening because people were rushed out, as Judge Bozberg said, and story after story is now coming out that people had nothing to do with the gang.
And so I think we're looking at people now who may be in a Salvadoran prison This is what I mean.
You hear what he said, the judge.
This is the crux of the case.
Their only argument is, look, We don't dispute the government's right to deport people in the country illegally.
We don't even dispute their right to imprison people if they're part of a criminal gang or an organization designated as a terrorist organization.
What we're arguing is that the people accused, before they get thrown away into a foreign country and disappeared forever in one of the worst prison systems in the world for life, Or indefinitely, has to have the right before they're put there to appeal to a court and say, we want a hearing to demonstrate that the accusation against us that we belong to this gang is false.
And the judge on the panel, who's a Trump appointee, interjected and said, you don't have...
I don't know why you keep talking about this because there's no dispute from this bench that every single person that they propose to deport to El Salvador has the right to an Article III hearing before they're deported where the evidence has to be considered.
And just as one reminder, and this is what I find frustrating.
To be honest, about the first two months of the Trump administration, it's a common claim within the MAGA movement that Bush and Cheney were terrible, that administration was terrible and destructive, the war on terror was wrong and bad, that civil liberties are vital.
What the Trump administration is doing was the crux of the War on Terror assault on civil liberties under Bush and Cheney.
The argument of Bush and Cheney was that we have the power, because we're in a war called the War on Terror, to unilaterally and with no review designate people, even American citizens, as terrorists or enemy combatants.
And once we do that, we can do anything we want to them with no judicial review.
We can torture them.
We can kidnap them off the streets of Europe and render them, ship them to Syria and Egypt to be tortured.
We can put them in prison in Guantanamo for life.
We can claim the right to spy on American citizens as long as we think it advances our interest in terms of battling terrorism.
And when there were Patriot Act controversies or Guantanamo controversies, the argument of the government was, look, Just trust us.
We have done a very thorough job of determining who these people are.
We know they're terrorists.
In fact, in Guantanamo, every person in Guantanamo, we were told, was not just a terrorist, but, quote, the worst of the worst.
And at the time, there were in excess of a thousand detainees in Guantanamo.
Now there are fewer than 30. Because the government over...
18 years realize that these people are not threats.
They have never been associated with terrorist organizations.
A lot of them were picked up based on bad intelligence or deliberate vindictive reporting to the US military that somebody was or just mistaken identity.
And it was only once the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that they have an entitlement to a hearing.
A habeas corpus hearing under the Constitution, even though they're not citizens, and even though they're being held in Guantanamo, and they started to prove that a lot of them did, that there was no evidence against them.
We learned this lesson already.
We should have learned it decades ago, even before that, that you don't trust the executive branch, the federal government, to say, we'll decide who's guilty.
You don't need to see any of the evidence.
They don't need any opportunity to contest it.
That's not the American system.
That's not an American value.
It never has been.
Here's Patricia Millett, who was also on the panel.
She's an Obama appointee.
She was very active in this oral argument.
I mean, again, just like badgering the DOJ lawyer, but in a way that the Trump appointee agreed with as well.
And we'll just show you a couple of clips of that.
But second, I think that the procedural one still challenges...
Fundamentally, in court habeas, it says you may not do anything to me under the AEA until you satisfy these preconditions.
You are utterly without power to do so.
I mean, that is the same sort of court habeas as asserting that a conviction is wrong because procedural requirements in a trial were not followed.
No, I don't think that's the same at all because people don't go through a trial in this country without getting the gold standard of due process.
And that was not happening here.
I think that's a false equation.
The problem here is that they are challenging implementation of the proclamation in a way that never gave anyone a chance to say, I'm not covered.
And if your argument is, we didn't have to do that, it's an intrusion on the president's war powers.
The courts are paralyzed to do anything, then that's a misreading of precedent.
It's a misreading of the text of the Alien Enemies Act.
And that can't be an unlawful intrusion on the President's powers.
It just can't.
The President has to comply with the Constitution and laws like everybody else.
On that we certainly agree, Your Honor.
I think that what has occurred...
I mean, just by the way, last week, my friends Sagar and Jetty and Crystal Wall, the co-host of Breaking Points, had a quite vociferous debate, twice in fact, about this issue with Crystal arguing against these deportations to El Salvador and Sagar arguing in favor.
I listened to both.
I went and talked to Sagar and explained to him my reasons why I thought he was wrong, and to his immense credit, asked me to come on the show, Crystal's Office Week on Vacation, where I could basically yell at him and tell him why he's wrong.
And he actually, during the conversation we had, even before this, was starting to say, you know what, maybe I'm being convinced.
I'm understanding these arguments better now.
He kind of said, I'm very emotional about illegal immigration, like a lot of people are.
And I just want the problem solved, but it is true.
We can't violate the Constitution or basically prostrate to do it.
And to his great credit, he invited me on.
The playful title that Breaking Points put up was Glenn Greenwald's School Sagar on Deportation.
A lot of people thought that that was the staff passive-aggressively rebelling against Sagar.
In fact, he was the one who wrote it, knowing that that would bring a lot of traffic to the But we did hash it out.
Ryan Grimm was there as well for about 25 minutes.
And kind of at the end, Sagar said, you know what?
I feel like I'm probably wrong on this issue.
I'm starting to understand why this can't be, that you can just throw people into an El Salvadoran prison with no opportunity for them to say that I've been wrongly accused of being part of a drug gang.
Otherwise, you could just pick up anybody.
The president could.
Anyway, I recommend that.
Talking points debate I did earlier today because a lot of these issues are really hashed out.
Here's the third segment I want to show you from the hearing because I want to just explain this one point.
The only reason that the Trump administration argues that they can ship people out of the country with no due process is because they have declared war.
They claim that the United States is under That it's a war, like World War I or World War II or the 1812 War, which were the only three times in history that the Alien Enemies Act, on which the Trump administration is relying, was actually invoked for real wars, like when the United States was really at war.
And they needed during World War II, for example, to expel people they thought were Nazi sympathizers or...
Sympathizers with Japan.
This was the statute that led FDR to claim the power to imprison Japanese Americans in internment camps with no evidence of wrongdoing, just based on the belief that if they were Japanese in ancestry, they would have more loyalty to Japan than to the United States.
So this is a very extreme law, and there's a lot of questions about are we actually at war?
Is that a criminal problem?
It sounds like a criminal problem.
Usually you go to war with nation states, not with drug gangs.
But even when we were in World War II and World War I and the 1812 war and the government claimed the right to expel people who were foreign threats, even they got hearings.
If someone was a suspected Nazi sympathizer or Nazi operative, before they got expelled from the country, they had a hearing to prove that they were mistreated, exactly what the Trump administration refuses to give people today.
And here's what Judge Millett said about that.
Your Honor, I think that this court's decision, IM versus CBP, is instructive on this.
Am I wrong about anything I just said, factually?
Your Honor, I think it's incorrect that they couldn't have gone into court as the five individual plaintiffs.
No, but the point here was that there were plane loads of people.
I mean, it's a class action.
There were plane loads of people.
There were no procedures in place to notify people.
Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act than has happened here, where the proclamation required the promulgation of regulations.
And they had hearing boards before people were removed.
And yet here, there's nothing in there about hearing boards.
There's no regulations.
And nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this.
People weren't given notice.
They weren't told where they were going.
And they were given...
Those people on those planes on that Saturday had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA.
And you've agreed that two of those airplanes...
People were removed under the AEA.
So, you kind of get a sense for how rough the Trump Justice Department lawyers had it at oral arguments.
Like I said, I've never seen such a one-sided oral argument before.
There are now these issues going to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Solicitor General.
Which is the office that argues for the U.S. government before the Supreme Court, has appealed to the Supreme Court on the question of a district court injunction in the Northern District of California that regards whether the Trump administration has the right to fire certain government employees who had been protected statutorily with the right not to be fired without just cause.
And the Solicitor General, in appealing directly to the Supreme Court, not going to the appeals court, says, quote, the lower court should not be allowed to transform themselves into all-purpose overseers of executive branch hiring, firing, contracting, and policymaking.
Only this court could end the interbranch power grab.
Now, I see a lot of Trump supporters arguing that district court judges should not have the power.
To make decisions that bind the entire federal government, the president, the executive branch, nobody elected them, etc., etc.
And like I said earlier, the Trump supporters, the conservative movement, frequently went into federal court under every Democratic administration for decades, including Joe Biden's, and asked a single federal judge in a single federal court district to enjoin, to stop Biden policy, not for just one district, but for the entire country, and they often succeeded in getting it.
No conservative back then ever said, oh, federal district court judges don't have the right to stop U.S. government policy.
Because, again, if you want to sue the U.S. government and get an injunction, stop them from doing something you believe is illegal or unconstitutional, you have to go to a federal district court.
That's the only one that can rule in the first instance.
And the solution, if the government thinks that the injunction is wrong, is not to ignore it, but to appeal to the appellate court and then the Supreme Court.
That's how the rule of law functions.
Here are a few examples from the—this is Beyond Data and Democracy headline.
Oh, actually, this is a little bit different.
This is— There's this other narrative that the judges who are ruling against the Trump administration are all left-wing judges.
They're all leftists carrying out a political agenda and a political war against Trump.
So this is the On Data and Democracy, which compiled data that reveals a cross-ideological judicial opposition to the Trump administration.
And... They have both liberal and conservative judges are ruling against Trump.
Two of the four judges targeted for impeachment are actually right of center.
And you can kind of see here that they have the conservatives over here and the liberals over here and the center, the kind of center over here.
And it's also for Trump and against Trump.
And you see a lot of these people for Trump.
Here are conservatives for Trump who have been ruling against him.
And you see Judge Boesberg, who again is being called a far leftist, even though his judicial history doesn't remotely suggest anything like that.
Other judges as well who are more to the conservative side.
And then you can really see it here, where this is the percentage ruling against Trump by judicial ideology, and it's 76 percent.
For liberal judges or Democrats, 88% for centrist judges, and even 50% for conservative judges.
So this is by no means a far-left attack on the Trump administration.
This is something which the judiciary is reacting to.
Remember, the Trump administration, the Trump movement, and this is part of what I liked about it, vowed that they were going to go in and completely break the way things are being done.
So it is, I think, expected that judges are going to be giving more scrutiny to brand new ways of doing things.
One of the cases that conservatives ended up getting a federal district court judge court to stop was Biden's plans to cancel student loans, something he was being pressured to do by the Democratic Party base.
And instead of getting Congress to do it, he issued an executive order, argued he had the power to do so.
Even though when Biden refused to do it for years, Nancy Pelosi said he doesn't have that power, only Congress can do it.
Biden did it because he wanted to give his base a kind of political president heading into the election.
And conservatives ran into a federal court, just a normal federal district court judge, and said Biden's student loan cancellation policy is illegal.
It exceeds his power as a president.
And they got a federal court judge, a lower court judge, to enjoin, to stop the policy for the entire country.
They overrode the president's policy.
Here is Donald Trump in a video on True Social in September of 2024 celebrating that ruling.
Joe Biden was just rejected with his hoax for trying to get student loans paid off or go away or whatever.
It was total rejection.
They laughed at him.
He's a stupid man, but he doesn't care because he's not running.
So that was one example.
Here, David Sachs, who I know very well and have a lot of respect for.
He's been a very knowledgeable and important and influential opponent of the war in Ukraine, among other things.
I think he's been really influenced by a lot of the voices that we have on our show, Professor Mearsheimer.
That kind of realist school that is opposed to intervention.
But he is now part of the Trump administration.
He's Trump's czar for crypto and artificial intelligence.
And he said this on X earlier today, quote, There are over 600 district court judges in the U.S., roughly half appointed by Democrats and half Republicans.
Obviously, the whole system breaks down if it only takes one to invalidate any executive branch action.
I just told you Trump celebrating a federal district court judge doing exactly that, invalidating an executive branch action.
But remember the case that we talked about a lot where the Biden administration was coercing and pressuring big tech to censor dissent on a whole range of issues, including COVID?
And the Biden administration lost in the federal district court level.
The conservative attorney general for Missouri and Louisiana went and ensued the Biden administration and asked a federal district court judge to enjoin that program and join the government from doing what they were doing with coercing big tech.
And David Sachs, the same David Sachs who just said the government would collapse if federal district court judges can override executive policy, the country would fall apart, was celebrating this.
Because, like myself, he found the censorship regime to be so offensive to the Constitution and American values.
Here's what he posted on X in July of 2023.
A U.S. district court has ruled that parts of the government, including FBI and HHS, cannot urge, encourage, pressure, or induce social media sites to remove content containing protected free speech.
A much-needed decision.
Happy July 4th.
Conservatives constantly gut federal district court judges to enjoin Democratic administrations.
Here's Charlie Kirk today.
I'm sorry, this is Charlie Kirk earlier this month speaking on Laura Ingraham's program about why he believes the United States now faces a constitutional crisis.
So you have these district court judges, usually Charlie, selected in areas where they know there's a disproportionate number of Democrat appointees.
So they'll go to the First Circuit, go to Boston or Connecticut or D.C. or out in the Pacific Northwest.
And they'll find a friendly judge.
And then that judge says, OK, the president has no authority.
I mean, that's just ludicrous.
So the administration has to go directly to the Supreme Court.
On that question, and there's a process for doing that.
But the DOJ and the Solicitor General's Office has to push against these nationwide injunctions because I think that's really going to be the only weapon in the first two years that the Democrats can deploy here.
It's the only weapon, and it is the strategy of trying to run out the clock.
They're trying to flood the zone with so many nationwide injunctions that the Supreme Court cannot practically actually be able to rule on all these cases.
If there's 100 or 200 sweeping nationwide injunctions, maybe half of them will end up being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a run-out-the-clock strategy that they tried during the first Trump administration.
And so Senate Republicans, they needed to get very wise about the new litmus test when they ask these new judges that come up for him.
Now, again, this is how our system has worked for many, many decades, more than a century.
Federal district court judges are the court of first instance when you sue the government, and they have always had the power to issue injunctions.
They issue injunctions against acts that are illegal or violated by the Constitution.
This is not a left-wing tactic as much as liberals.
This is not a left-wing tactic.
And it is true that there are more injunctions against the Trump administration, but that's because the Trump administration came in extremely well prepared, extremely well prepared, to issue an immense amount of executive orders from the Trump right house to implement the agenda that they had wanted to implement.
And usually presidents get into office, and like I said, they tend to be interested in the continuity of the status quo, and so you don't get anywhere near the number of executive orders.
Charlie Kirk used the phrase flooding the zone for these lawsuits.
That's what liberals have been calling Trump's strategy, flood the zone with so many executive orders that you can't keep track of them.
So that's the reason.
It's an action and a reaction.
Here was Charlie Kirk.
That was Charlie Kirk saying we have to put a stop to federal district court judges in joining our whole government nationwide.
Here he was in July of 2023 reacting to the federal district court's injunction of the pressuring of the...
Big tech companies by the Biden administration and Charlie Kirk said, quote, instead of simply reporting the facts that a federal judge just delivered a blockbuster injunction in Missouri versus Biden, blocking this administration from outsourcing its censorship regime to social media companies, the New York Times spins it as, quote, a ruling that could curtail efforts to fight disinformation.
Pure propaganda.
I totally agree with Charlie Kirk's tweet there.
I covered that New York Times framing.
I completely agree.
I celebrated that federal court injunction because federal courts have the power to enjoin the government nationwide.
The Biden administration appealed that ruling to the appellate court.
They also lost in the appellate court.
The appellate court said, by a 3-0 decision, this is one of the worst assaults on the First Amendment we've seen, and the government remains enjoined from doing this.
And then they appealed to the Supreme Court that Biden administration won, mostly on quasi-procedural grounds.
That's the way the court system works, and it always has.
Here from the Topolovsky-Smith law firm in November of 2024, quote, Federal court permanently enjoins Biden parole-in-place program for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens.
The USCIS announces that it will cease to accept and process applications under this program.
So the Biden administration put in a program for undocumented spouses and children.
Conservatives ran into federal court, said it was unconstitutional and illegal.
The federal district court said it was.
The Biden administration says, okay, we're going to stop the program.
Here from the Washington Post, June of 2024, courts grant injunction against Biden's student loan repayment plan.
Judges in Kansas and Missouri issued rulings Monday preventing the government from fully implementing and forgiving any more loans through the SAVE program.
And that, of course, was a federal district court judge.
Trump did that video celebrating it.
Here from September of 2023, Phelps Dunbar LLC, the law firm.
Issued a release.
Texas district court judge enjoins President Biden's $15 minimum wage for federal contractors' order.
So the government wanted to implement a policy that if you want to have a contract with the federal government, there's a requirement of a $15 minimum wage.
The conservatives ran into a federal court, got a single federal district court judge to issue an injunction nationwide.
They all celebrated that.
Here from the law firm Sidley in Austin, August 2022, U.S.
District Court enjoins the Biden administration's nationwide oil and gas leasing pause following the 5th So the Biden administration, based on the promise that they made during the campaign, wanted to pause oil drilling and gas leasing, and conservatives ran into a federal court.
A single district court judge got persuaded to issue a nationwide injunction stopping Biden from doing so.
Every conservative celebrated.
Nobody said, what do you mean a federal district court judge can?
Is he a nationwide injunction stopping the government?
Yes. Everyone understands that's how it's always worked.
I understand there are more such injunctions now, but that's because there are more Trump executive orders now.
And Trump is not a status quo president.
He's a status quo breaking president in a lot of ways.
If you want to complain about the number, complain about the number.
The principle, though, cannot be challenged, which is that of course a federal district court judge has the right to issue nationwide injunctions stopping a presidential policy.
They always have had that power.
Both sides have used that power and celebrated it repeatedly.
And now suddenly they want to create a new principle that federal district court judges should not have this power because it's Donald Trump now in office and they don't want to see him constrained in any way.
That is anything but a principled or a constitutional-based argument.
What if your morning coffee didn't just wake you up?
What if it actually made you younger?
That's why 1775 created Rejuvenate.
The first coffee infused with C-A-A-K-G, a clinically proven ingredient to fight aging at the cellular level.
You're still getting that pure 1775 coffee-quality single-origin beans, small-batch roasting, and specialty-grade coffee ethically sourced from small farms.
But now, each cup fires up your metabolism, boosts your energy, and turns back the clock.
By up to eight biological years in just seven months.
Yes, studies prove that.
I'm not making that up.
1775 Rejuvenate officially drops on April 15th, but you can lock in your pre-order right now.
And every dollar you spend still enters you to win a Cybertruck and $30,000 in cash.
Head over to 1775coffee.com.
Use the promo code Glenn for 15% off and then drink your age away.
*music*
We could spend literally every day documenting and announcing new Israeli atrocities in Gaza.
There are all kinds of reporters who have covered wars for 30 years and aid organizations that have done so as well, who have said they have never seen destruction and indiscriminate killing of the kind that Israel has been doing in Gaza.
You know all the statistics about the tens of thousands of children killed, 90%, 2% of all.
Buildings destroyed or rendered completely compromised.
It's essentially just turning Gaza into a parking lot, which a lot of Israelis at the beginning said, and I was told, oh, don't listen to them.
They're fringe voices.
They're nothing but fringe voices.
That's exactly what the Israeli government planned to do, while at the same time they were cutting off food and water and electricity and medicine so that things like amputations or surgeries without anesthesia on children It became necessary because of those blockades, as well as malnutrition and mass starvation.
Earlier today, the Israeli military targeted and then killed two young journalists in separate attacks in Gaza.
Here from antiwar.com, quote, Israel strikes, Hassam Shabbat, a reporter for Al Jazeera, and Mohammed Mansour, a correspondent for Palestine Today, for Palestine Today TV.
Now, Hassam Shabbat in particular, we've had a young Palestinian journalist on our program who is a correspondent for Dropside News, the outlet founded by my former colleagues and my friends, Ryan Grimm and Jeremy Scahill, that has been doing excellent coverage on the war in Gaza.
He's a Bakr Abed, who you probably remember.
He's 22, speaks fluent English, wanted to go into journalism before this whole thing started.
Because he wanted to report on his favorite sport, which is soccer.
Only to have watched many, if not most, members of the Palestinian soccer team killed over the last year and a half or so.
And three days ago or two days ago, he disappeared from the internet.
People got very worried.
And it turns out he was suffering from severe malnutrition, which is, there's no death worse.
Then when your body starts shutting down because of hunger, starving to death is the most painful death there is.
I've been here about a 22-year-old healthy kid who, because of the blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza, including food, is suffering from malnutrition.
And I was so impressed by him.
He knows the danger of what he's doing.
He continues to do it anyway.
But another journalist, a young journalist, who's 24, Hassam Shabbat, is somebody I've been following very closely over the last 15 months to get the news about what's happening in Gaza.
There's no foreign journalists allowed in, so we have to rely on Gaza and Palestinian journalists, or we have no idea what's taking place in Gaza, except what the IDF would tell us, which is the opposite of reliable.
And Hassam Shabbat, the 24-year-old journalist who's been reporting every day on the destruction in Gaza, He was driving the car today.
The IDF targeted his car, dropped a bomb on it or a drone, blew up the car and killed him instantly.
And he was also a colleague of DropSight.
He had written messages at DropSight and he knew his life was in danger.
Everyone in Gaza's life is in danger.
It's a country, a place of two million people.
And at least 60,000 have died.
At least.
There are every organization that says that's an undercount.
So you're starting to talk about 3%, 4%, 5% of the population extinguished with no end in sight.
But being a journalist in particular has been extra dangerous because Israel targets the journalists because they are dangerous to Israel because they show the world what the Israelis are doing.
And so Hassam had prepared a message, I don't know exactly when, but that he had asked his colleagues and his family to post in the event that he was killed.
And because he was killed, they now posted it.
Here's what it says, quote, If you're reading this, it means I have been killed, most likely targeted by the Israeli occupation forces.
When all this began, I was only 21 years old, a college student with dreams like anyone else.
For the past 18 months, I have dedicated every moment of my life to my people.
I documented the horrors in northern Gaza minute by minute, determined to show the world the truth they tried to bury.
I slept on pavements, in schools, in tents, anywhere I could.
Each day was a battle for survival.
I endured hunger for months, yet I never left my people's side.
By God, I fulfilled my duty as a journalist.
I risked everything to report the truth, and now I am finally at rest, something I haven't known in the past 18 months.
I did all this because I believe in the Palestinian cause.
I believe this land is ours and it has been the highest honor of my life to die defending it and serving its people.
I ask you now, do not stop speaking about Gaza.
Do not let the world look away.
Keep fighting.
Keep telling our stories until Palestine is free.
For the last time, Hassam Shabet from northern Gaza.
Now, Western journalists love to herald themselves as...
Brave and heroic.
Jim Acosta wrote that.
Notorious book where he depicted himself as some sort of martyr, constantly in danger because telling the truth in the air of Trump was so dangerous.
And the only thing that ever happened to him in his entire career was Trump said a few insulting side remarks about him.
This is actual courage.
You're 24 years old.
You have a stream of death threats from the IDF saying if you continue to do this reporting, we're going to kill you.
You've seen hundreds of journalists in Gaza be targeted with death, and yet you continue to do the work, knowing that it's so likely that you're going to be targeted with death that you actually prepare a statement ahead of time, knowing that it's likely to be released in the event that you're killed.
I don't even need to tell you what Israel's defense is.
These are all terrorists and Hamas operatives.
As we see with everything in Colombia, if you protest the Israeli war in Gaza, if you denounce it, if you're an effective critic of Israel, automatically you're a terrorist and you're pro-Hamas.
That's what those terms mean.
Here was the IDF, October 23, 2004, just about five months ago.
Documents exposed six Al Jazeera journalists as terrorists in Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror organizations, and one of the people they listed was Hassam Shabbat.
There you see the six journalists, and he is in the lower left-hand corner.
Now... The Committee to Protect Journalists, and there's been very few Western journalistic outlets objecting to any of this, even though in every other instance they would.
You may remember that a Wall Street Journal reporter was detained in Russia for about nine months, and they never stopped talking about it.
And I don't blame them for that.
That's their duty, especially the Wall Street Journal.
And he was released.
Chuck Carlson, Evan Gerskiewicz, yeah.
Chuck Carlson went to interview Putin and spent the last 10 minutes of the interview badgering Putin to release him.
So journalists do that.
They stand up for other journalists.
Very few, though, have stood up for the Gazan journalists who have been targeted and killed by Israel because, for obvious reasons, people are very afraid to criticize Israel and the United States.
The committee-deprected journalists, though, has done so somewhat, and...
Here is what they released today.
Journalists' Casualties in the Israel-Gaza War.
Quote, So more journalists killed in this conflict than any since 1992, since they've been counting.
Tammy Bruce is the spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, replacing Matthew Miller, though sounding awful like him, especially when it comes to Israel.
And we have the video where she was asked today about the killing of these two journalists.
And essentially, every time Israel does something horrific, kills aid workers, foreign aid workers, people with the UN, and this is going back to the Biden administration as well.
There's complete continuity between the Biden administration and the Trump administration on this.
The State Department will say, oh yeah, we really regret it.
It's absolutely terrible.
It's so tragic.
Yes, it's being done with our money and our weapons.
But even though Israel is the one who keeps killing these people, it's all the fault somehow of Hamas.
Here's what she said today.
journalists, Fossam Shabbat of Al Jazeera Mubasha, Mohammed Mansour of Palestine.
Today, that brings the number to 208.
Each one was individually targeted.
The IDF says they used extensive intelligence gathering and precise munitions.
Shabbat killed in his car, Mansour in his house.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has once again noted that the deliberate targeted killing of journalists is a war crime.
I would say that every single thing that's happening...
Is a result of Hamas and its choices to drag that region down into a level of suffering that has been excruciating and has caused innumerable deaths.
And of course their reaction on October 7th when there was a ceasefire and people were living in some relative peace, they decided to break that with an atrocity that was just certainly the most Jews killed in a single framework than during the Holocaust.
And we also, I can tell you, we stand by Israel and its needs as it defends itself through this period of time as we also work with them so that they don't need to defend themselves from the barbarity of an entity that has destroyed lives for generations and continues to.
So for everyone who has, for everyone, so many people.
Who do so many jobs and who've lived different lives and the children and the babies who didn't have a chance to seek their fortunes or their life dreams because of the barbarity of certain people who think that murder is the only way to move through life.
Is it a war crime?
I'm certainly, you know, I'm not going to stand here and declare what's a war crime and what isn't.
But what we do know is a crime.
Is the mass slaughter of any individuals certainly the targeting of people simply because of who they are?
That Jew hatred is a signal regarding the barbarity and the nature of who it is you're dealing with.
The world knows that if you don't stop it and don't confront it, as it bears its ugly face, it will not stop.
And that is part of what this world now has decided, that when we say never again, we mean never again.
I think one of the most repulsive things that I hear when I see the U.S. government under Biden and now Trump justifying every single thing Israel does by appealing to this never again slogan is that they seem to think that never again means or that the war crimes conventions created after World War II mean and cover only Jews.
That from now on you can't touch a hair on the head of a Jew because never again means that will never happen, and war crimes were created only to protect Jews from what happened in the Holocaust.
And if you go back and look at the Nuremberg trials where they punished and killed Nazi war criminals, all of the prosecutors from the United States, from other allied countries, the judges, all said...
What we're doing here will only matter, will only be just if the principles we're creating apply to every single country in the future, including the ones who are part of the prosecution.
This did not mean that any violence against Jews suddenly invokes the horrors of the Holocaust.
Other people can impose war criminality and mass slaughter.
Not just people who do so to Jews, and actually a Jewish state can do that as well.
And the idea that, oh, everything was so nice and wonderful and peaceful in this region until Hamas attacked on October 7th, killing 800 civilians and the rest IDF soldiers and armed agents of the state, and that that's the thing that you focus on, what happened 15 months ago, that one-day killing of 800 civilians?
Versus the 60,000 who have died in Gaza at least, the targeting of journalists, the slaughter of children, the destruction of all of infrastructure, that you only go back to that one day because everything was so peaceful when Hamas attacked, when in reality Israel had bombed Gaza repeatedly throughout 2023, before October 7th, just like they did in 2022 and 2021 and 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017.
2014 was...
On a remarkable level.
Not what competes with this.
But the Israelis have been bombing the crap out of the Palestinians for decades, blockading them, keeping them tracked in Gaza, brutally occupying the West Bank.
Believing that this war started on October 7th is like propaganda like the war in Ukraine began on in February of 2022 when the Russians invaded and nothing ever happened of any kind of hostility before that.
But to stand there and say, hey, you just killed two young journalists by targeting them.
Isn't that a war crime and say, all I care about is October 7th and that, whatever Israel does, they can go and slaughter as many babies as they want.
We're going to blame Hamas and we're going to keep paying for Israel's war.
We're going to keep arming them to do all of this.
I don't know what happened to America First, by the way.
Like, you would think America First would mean like, hey, we're not going to.
Give billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars to Israel.
We're going to instead spend it at home on our own citizens.
Remember all of that?
And they're cutting aid to every foreign country they can find except for Israel?
It sounds like anything about America First to me.
Now, besides what they did in Gaza with these two young journalists, in the West Bank, where there has been An amount of violence and destruction, burning people's homes down, expelling them from their land, while the whole world recognizes the West Bank not as Israel but as belonging to the Palestinians.
But obviously Israel doesn't care about international law because it has the largest, richest, and most powerful country in history in the United States fully captive to it, fully paying for it, fully arming it, fully protecting it.
Why would they have to worry?
They have been.
Open about the fact that they're looking not just to expel Palestinians from Gaza, but also from the West Bank.
They want that land for themselves.
They already occupy larger and larger parts of Syria and Lebanon.
It's just Laban's realm that they're seeking.
In the West Bank, as you probably know, there was a film that was produced by a...
Israeli Jew and a Palestinian living in the West Bank that was designed to document the apartheid treatment of the West Bank by illustrating the vastly different rights that this Israeli Jew has versus this Palestinian in the West Bank.
It was a documentary.
It won the Oscar just a couple months ago for Best Documentary.
It hasn't found American distribution because theaters are afraid to show it.
When it was going to be shown in, yeah, the name of the documentary is The Other Land.
When a theater in Miami Beach said that they were going to show it, the mayor tried to cancel the lease of the theater as punishment for showing this film, even though it won an Oscar because it reflects poorly on Israel.
Israel hates this film.
Obviously, the Israeli who produced it has done something very courageous, but so has the...
A Palestinian, knowing how Israel would react.
One of the producers of this film today, not one of those two primary ones who directed it, but a producer of the film who actually won the award itself, because when a documentary wins the Academy Award, the producers of the film are the ones who actually get the Oscar, so he's the one who got the Oscar.
He was attacked brutally and practically lynched by Israeli settlers who have just occupied land that doesn't belong to them.
And they keep occupying it with the encouragement and protection of the Israeli government and the Israeli military.
And he was essentially very close to being killed.
I think his life is still at risk.
Here from AP, earlier today, Oscar-winning Palestinian director is attacked by Israeli settlers and detained, activists say.
Dozens of settlers attacked the Palestinian village of Sousia.
In the Mansfariyata area, destroying property, said the activist group Century for Jewish Nonviolence.
THEY ATTACKED HOMDAD BALAL, ONE OF THE CODIRECTORS OF THE JOINT PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI PRODUCTION, LEAVING HIS HEAD BLEEDING, THE ACTIVIST SAYS.
AS HE WAS BEING TREATED IN AN AMBULANCE, ISRAELI SOLDIERS DETAINED HIM AND A SECOND PALESTINIAN MAN IN THE GROUP SAID.
THE ISRAELI MILITARY SAID IT WAS LOOKING INTO THE EPISODE, BUT We don't know where Hamdan is because he was taken away in a blindfold.
Josh Kimmelman, one of the activists who was at the scene, told the Associated Press.
A group of 10 to 20 mass settlers attacked him and other Jewish activists with stones and sticks and smashed their car windows and slashed their tires.
Video provided by the Center for Jewish Nonviolence showed a mass settler Now,
here, by the way, is the activist who is Holding the Oscar, he's in the back there, the older gentleman who's balding.
Here you see up front the Israeli and the Palestinian co-directors who became the face of the film.
So the idea that this Palestinian who just won an Oscar for a film Critical Israel ended up getting attacked by Israeli settlers.
And then in the ambulance, the IDF dragged him out and arrested him and disappeared him.
Is the level where we're at with Israel.
Now, I just want to make one last point, which is that RFK Jr., who I had on my show when he was a candidate running for the Democratic primary, and whose health agenda I was largely supportive of,
got into office the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I was a strong advocate for his confirmation, and he had an agenda called Make America Healthy Again.
And there was a long list of important and impressive but difficult achievements he hoped to accomplish.
Things like combating chronic disease among Americans and child obesity, waging war on the regulatory capture by Big Pharma and Big Ag, Forcing the removal of dangerous additives in the American food supply that don't exist anywhere else.
Re-examining and subjecting to much greater scrutiny certain medications that have been approved by a process that was sketchy because of the way in which the pharmaceutical company, Big Pharma, the whole agenda encouraging more exercise, make America healthy again.
Earlier today, here's what R.K. Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, posted, quote, I'm sorry, this was not today.
This was, I don't know if we have the date for this, but this was last month.
This was one of the first things he tweeted as Health and Human Services Secretary.
He said this, quote, Anti-Semitism, like racism, is a spiritual and moral malady that sickened societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history's most deadly plagues.
In recent years, the censorship and false narratives of woke cancel culture have transformed our great universities into greenhouses for this deadly and virulent pestilence.
Making America healthy means building communities of trust and mutual respect based on speech freedom and open debate.
Such an Orwellian post because the way the Trump administration is dealing with what they call anti-Semitism on college campuses, trying to eliminate bigotry as though that can be done just like Democrats tried to eliminate racism and are doing so by forcing universities to implement much more rigid speech codes, much more expanded definitions of anti-Semitism that outlaw a whole variety of common critiques of Israel.
For RFK Jr. to define that as An advancement of free speech and battling censorship on college campus when it actually is censorship on college campus was unbelievably ironic.
But the fact that one of the first public announcements he made as Secretary of Health and Human Services had nothing to do with the Make America Healthy Again agenda that I just described spoke volumes.
And then he went back to X earlier today to make an announcement, again, not about He's called the October 7th Holocaust.
What's happening in Gaza is not a Holocaust, but what happened on October 7th is, he says, instead of inspiring universal condemnation, the October 7th Holocaust, I'm glad Columbia has agreed to this first step and will begin to restore itself as a garden of tolerance,
reason, compassion, and respect.
Now, again, one of the things Colombia was forced to agree to was to adopt a radically expanded definition of anti-Semitism, the kind that they already have adopted in the EU.
That prevents you from saying Israel is a racist endeavor.
You can say that about the United States or China or Peru or any other country in the world, just not about Israel.
You're not allowed to observe that certain American Jews, like, say, Ben Shapiro or Barry Weiss, just to pick two random examples.
We seem to have greater loyalty to Israel than the United States.
That's one of the things that's now borrowed as anti-Semitism to say.
You're not allowed to criticize Israel in a way that suggests you're applying a double standard to it, meaning you criticize Israel but don't hold other countries to that too as anti-Semitism.
You're not allowed to compare what the Israeli government is doing to the crimes of the Nazis, even though the whole purpose of the Nuremberg trials was to use that as a historical precedent to Blow the whistle and to alert people to similar crimes.
That is not allowed.
You can say that about the United States.
You can say the United States are acting like Nazis.
You can say the Russians are.
You can say the Ukrainians are.
You can say the British are.
Pick whatever country you want and say that about them.
Feel free.
Have a party.
Calling it racist and comparing it to just not this one country.
That you are not allowed to do.
Because now the Trump administration is demanding the application of more rigid speech codes to protect a particular minority and to eliminate bigotry after mocking the left and Democrats and liberals for doing exactly that for every other single minority group for a full decade.
But it just shows you the obsession of the U.S. government on this single foreign country.
I mean, it's one thing for Marco Rubio to do it or Elise Stefanik to do it.
Or national security officials to do it.
It's still kind of weird that they're so obsessed with Israel.
But at least they're talking about their actual jobs.
RFK is the Health and Human Services Secretary.
He excited so many people based on an agenda having to do with American health.
And twice now, of the very few public pronouncements he's made, it's both been about anti-Semitism on college campuses, the need to curb it, and October 7th, the Holocaust.
At some point, I mean, it's already happening, but at some point Americans are going to really start asking, why does Israel play such a vital central role?
Why is the U.S. government constantly talking about it?
Why is it sending billions of dollars a year to that foreign country?
Why are they making special rules just for this one group of people and just of that foreign country?
If you're worried about anti-Semitism, this is what's going to fuel it.
Telling people that they're now outlawed from criticizing Israel, telling them that they're not allowed to talk about Israel, that everything they question or every criticism they raise is anti-Semitic.
Telling them they have to send billions and billions of dollars a year to Israel, even after the Trump administration and the MAGA movement was all about, let's stop giving our money to foreign countries and keep it here and spend it on our own country's welfare.
At some point, that's going to be realized.
It already is.
The approval rating for Israel is the lowest point ever in the history of Gallup polling.
We showed you that two weeks ago.
And to watch even these kind of ancillary cabinet members in the Trump administration who have nothing to do with foreign policy continuously make pronouncements to serve Israel and show how concerned they are about it is just further fuel to the fire that's going to lead to people, rightfully so, asking why this foreign country has such a grave hold on our politics on a bipartisan basis.
And why it is that even every day you turn the internet and you see them blowing up children, blowing up journalists, blowing up buildings, destroying all of society, occupying multiple countries, bombing multiple countries, all with American weapons and American money.
Why it is that the United States is so blindly devoted to this foreign country and why American politicians seem to have a much greater willingness to criticize our own government.
Than this foreign government on the other side of the world.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all of the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
As a final reminder, as independent journalists, as independent media, we really do rely on the support of our members and viewers, which happens through the Locals community.
If you join the Locals community, you get a wide range of benefits, including access to a lot of exclusive video interviews and content that we don't have time to publish here.
It's a place that we Give interactive features to communicate with you throughout the week.
A lot of times when we run out of time on this show and want to do a third segment, we put it exclusively for streaming to our local members.
It's a place we publish transcripts of every program we broadcast here.
It gets published there, but most of all, it's the...
Community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For those who have been watching this show, we are, needless to say, very grateful and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live exclusively here on Rumble.
