Glenn on Wars in Gaza & Yemen, First Two Months of Trump Admin, Deportations, Independent Media, and More
Glenn answers questions from our Locals community on the most surprising elements of the Trump administration, big tech's influence on politics, the future of independent media, and more.
-----------------------
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 single Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight... As you likely know, we have been on Friday night instituting a new type of show where we take questions from our local subscribers and members who submit questions all throughout the week.
We have a Q&A where we try and cover as many different topics as we can based on the questions submitted by our local members.
We have the ability to take their questions by text, by audio, by video.
I know I've been saying this for a while, but I really hope that soon this will happen where we will be able to take basically your calls as well where you can call in with your question and we can have an actual live interaction during the show.
That's not quite ready yet, but I believe it will shortly be available on Locals.
Tonight we have a list of great questions.
It was very hard to choose them.
I'm going to try and get to as many of them.
As I can, they range from topics such as the resumption of Israel's assault on Gaza, support for American interventionism in terms of Trump, restarting Joe Biden's bombing campaign on Yemen, Doge and what they're up to, techno-feudalism, and much more.
Before we get to all of that, we have a few programming notes.
As you know, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
Once you do so, your app will work on your smart TV, your telephone, and multiple other devices as well, and then you can follow the programs you most love to watch on this platform.
Once you do that, if you activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means that anytime those shows that you follow begin broadcasting live on the platform, you'll be notified by text or by email, however you want.
You just click on the link.
Begin listening, begin watching.
It really helps the live viewing numbers of Rumble's shows and therefore the free speech cause of Rumble itself.
Add 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 helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, as independent media, independent journalists, we really do rely on the support of our viewers and members and supporters, which takes place...
Through our Locals community you get a wide range of benefits including interactive features throughout the week where we can communicate you through with you that way.
Every Friday night we do this Q&A session where we take questions exclusively from our Locals members.
We put a lot of Exclusive video interviews and segments that we don't have time to put on this show.
We put those there.
We publish written, professionalized transcripts of every program we do here.
We publish those there as well.
And most of all, it is 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 now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right after a brief message from our sponsor.
As you may know, I have a lot of dogs at home.
I'm talking more than two dozen.
We also have a shelter for dogs that have another 150 or so, and so I'm all too familiar, in fact, with the various ailments that might afflict dogs, and one of them is chronic skin problems.
If your dog is constantly itching and scratching or dealing with hot spots, you really have to check out Coat Defense.
It's an all-natural solution that's been helping so many dogs.
And here's why this caught my attention.
I've seen firsthand from the shelter work we do and from our own dogs how often dogs develop things like yeast infections, especially in their paws, ears, and skin folds.
It's really more common than a lot of people realize, but the usual treatments like steroids or antibiotics or Citilpoint or Apoquel, they might cover up the symptoms for a while, but they don't fix the root cause.
And in some cases, they may actually make things worse.
It's worse over time.
Code Defense is different.
Their daily preventative powder works as a dry shampoo, odor eliminator, and anti-itch powder.
But what makes it special is that it eliminates yeast naturally by changing the terrain on your dog's skin so that yeast and bacteria cannot survive.
They have no toxic chemicals, no synthetic junk, just safe, natural ingredients.
They also make an alabase sensitive skin shampoo that calms irritated skin, preserves the natural oils and microbiome, and is totally free of parabens, sulfates, and Anything artificial and honestly...
I've been really surprised reading the testimonials and seeing their products firsthand in my own dogs.
Obviously, I would not recommend, especially dog products, without being highly confident in their safety and efficacy.
I've heard from so many people that this is really the only thing that has worked after years of frustration with dogs finally itch-free and healthy again, and that's why I'm happy to partner with Code Defense.
So if your dog has been struggling and nothing else has helped, go to codedefense.com and use promo code GLENN for 15% off your first order.
That's codedefense.com, code Glenn.
I've always thought that the ability or the obligation of a journalist to interact with their readers or their viewers is actually one of the most important and positive developments of internet-based journalism.
It used to be that journalists used that model.
They would just speak from a hill and pass down their articles.
As though they were scrolls handed down from God to Moses and nobody could really ever respond.
The internet has enabled a much different means of interacting with your readers where you get questions, challenges, critiques, all sorts of things like that and I've always believed that has been fundamental to how journalism should work.
Going all the way back to when I created my blog back in 2005 and I would spend a lot of time after publishing the articles in my comment section interacting with readers who had all sorts of questions and Added information and even criticism and critiques, and by interacting with that, it just makes your work all the better.
So we're really happy that we've chosen on Friday night to institute this Q&A where we get questions from our local members, and we have an excellent sampling today, as we typically do.
And let's get right into it.
The first one is from Kevin Kotwas, and he wrote this, quote, I think one of the problems in talking about Doge is that there,
on the one hand, has been not a lot of transparency in terms of What they've been doing.
They've tried to provide some transparency.
Some of the information ended up unreliable or inaccurate, which is, I guess, to be expected when a brand new government agency starts doing work that has never really been done before, but that has made it a little bit difficult to get a reliable assessment of what they're doing.
And then on the other hand, you have enormous amounts of hysteria and histrionics about what they're doing as well.
That has not really been balanced by Doge explaining or defending itself.
Last night, Elon Musk and key members of the Doge team went on to Fox News.
About eight of them spent 30 to 35 minutes being questioned by Fox anchor Brett Baer about exactly what their work is.
I think it's really worth watching.
For those of you who haven't seen it, it gives a different impression in terms of at least their mindset.
Their methods, their objectives that it has presented by the media, but I still think it's a brand new project that is extremely new and deserves a lot of scrutiny and not just blind applause because people of Elon Musk or all of the Trump administration and want to just therefore cheer for whatever they're doing.
I do think there's also a critique that you can want to cut Excess spending and excess bureaucracy, which the U.S. government undoubtedly has.
But at the same time, if you do it recklessly, you can produce a lot of negative outcomes that you don't want to produce.
And I think Elon felt like he's had success doing that with Twitter, and he actually did.
He went in and cut something like 80% of the workforce.
I remember very well that a bunch of tech experts and media people were saying, oh, Twitter's just going to stop working.
Within two months, it's going to be unstable, and then it's just going to stop working.
And it works as well as it ever has.
There's really no operational disruption to it.
And I'm sure he's done that in other companies before.
The problem is that the U.S. government is a far more complicated and far-reaching operation than just, say, doing that to a tech company.
The worst that happens if you cut too much in a tech company is you just hire people back when you cut programs that are crucial to People's health and people's lives, including the United States or the US government's policies, then you can really do a lot of damage.
But as for the broader critique, I think this broader critique that the question raises about, let's call it the ideology of Silicon Valley, which I do think is aptly described as being transhumanist, having really kind of a quasi-religious view.
There was just an interview with Bill Gates.
Where he was asked whether he thinks that humans are going to become obsolete in terms of the work that humanity does and the work that the planet needs.
And he basically said, yeah, I think most of this work that we need done and do now will be done by a combination of AI and also robots.
And humans almost were talked about by him as though we were extraneous, kind of unnecessary almost, besides the point.
Beings that will lay around and, I don't know, consume things and maybe have leisure time, but be liberated from work because we're not really competent to do work as well as the technology that Silicon Valley has been developing.
And then when Mark Zuckerberg was on Joe Rogan, I actually had a two-hour root canal and I listened to the entire thing.
I'm not sure which was worse, but the view of Mark Zuckerberg was very much that not necessarily that human beings are going to be eliminated, but that we're going to start merging with The technology that they're developing.
So instead of having a phone that we hold in our hand, we will have vision, goggles implanted in our eyes.
Eventually, there'll be ways of technologically drilling into our brain to connect this kind of technology so that our brains just automatically have it.
You don't need a device anymore.
He talked about experiments they're already doing for medical purposes to cure paralysis or to try and obviously achieve noble goals that involve Understanding the brain, how to manipulate the brain, how to use technology to merge it into the brain so that neurological functions can be enhanced.
Those kind of things are obviously promising, but you can very quickly see the dystopian vision that that might lead to.
And I do think there has been this kind of techno-feudal or transhumanist, as the question I think aptly described it, ideology that has become pervasive in Silicon Valley.
I just don't know that I would attribute that All that to doze.
I'm not sure it's doze that is responsible for that or even after two months being guided by that kind of vision.
I think they're more about just kind of tearing out parts of the government, which has been a long time dream of the American right.
Ronald Reagan talked about things like closing the Department of Education and mass and he just could never get it done.
And whatever else you want to say about the Trump administration, they did come in with very clear plans, very clear ideas of how they wanted to do the things they went and set about doing.
So this is always the case.
Always, always, always the case.
Anytime you have a revolution, and I'm using this term loosely, you can hate the government and believe the government is deeply corrupt and therefore support revolutionary sentiments and just uprooting a corrupt government.
Or a repressive government is in and of itself worthwhile because without a revolution you know it will continue indefinitely.
But there's always the risk that the revolution replaces the horrific status quo with something worse.
That's always a danger.
And that kind of creates a human inertia.
Let me just stick with what I know.
And I do think that was...
Part of the sentiment that makes people fear Trump is that he is and they perceive him as being a radical deviation from how things are being done.
And even people dissatisfied with the status quo are afraid of change.
I think human beings instinctively and in general are afraid of change.
We always prefer bad things that we're familiar with than the unknown, which promises to be better or to be worse.
But just the fact that it's unknown makes us fear it more.
And this is always how I've seen Donald Trump, and there's several questions coming up about Trump and what he's done and how it aligns or doesn't align with my expectations, but I've cited this quote many times before, the quote from Seymour Hersh that says that Trump basically acts as a circuit breaker.
So if you look at the way Washington works, controlled by massive corporations, by corporatist interests, by the military industrial complex, by the intelligence community, by the posture of endless war, it already has hauled out the country.
Put our country in trillions of dollars worth of debt.
Has made the United States be perceived with great hostility in most places around the world.
Made us rely on constant military force and wars and bombing campaigns as a way to advance our national interest.
Has been overwhelmingly oriented toward serving the interest of large corporate.
Interest at the expense of pretty much everybody else in the country.
I mean, this is part of the MAGA critique.
So if you believe that, and I do, and if you believe that that status quo has been extremely destructive and corrupt, as I do, just say nothing of all these relationships with global institutions and the like, and the destruction of credibility of most of our institutions from science to media to politics and essentially everything in between.
It's hard to say, oh, I oppose something that will go in and just kind of smash it all to pieces, even if I don't know what's going to be rebuilt in its place.
And it's possible that what's rebuilt in its place might actually make those bad attributes worse.
But breaking things at least creates an opportunity.
There's opportunity in chaos.
There's opportunity in change.
And so the floor might be lower, but the ceiling is much, much higher.
And I'm not willing to say yet that those specifically or the Trump movement in general is accelerating our path to techno-feudalism or transhumanism.
I think that's a path we've been on because of how influential Silicon Valley has become.
But I also will say that one of the things that I do think has gotten overlooked because MAGA and Trump Have so hyped this idea that they're opposed to the military-intelligence complex, the military-industrial complex, the intelligence community, is we kind of have a changing of the guard of the military-industrial complex.
So maybe like Boeing is out, and Raytheon is out, and Lockheed Martin is out, although I haven't seen much of that, but maybe they're coming out.
But then you have just these newer versions, like Palantir, which is inextricably linked.
To the intelligence community has become a critical, essential part of the Trump administration.
They are the leaders in things like mass surveillance, launching wars.
Just go listen to Alex Karp and go read an article he's written or an interview where he conducted or go watch one and you'll see what that agenda is.
And people like him are extremely embedded.
into the Trump administration and I do think that's a serious danger.
I just think after two months hitting the panic button or drawing very widespread wide range of conclusions I think is premature despite the fact that I think those dangers are real but I think the potential is real as well.
Alright, the next question is from TheMillMan who asked, Hey Glenn, do you think the pro-Palestine protests would have gained more MAGA sympathy?
If they were also explicitly against funding the Ukraine war, just wondering because I've come to believe that appealing to people's consciences is not effective, particularly when the media is against your cause.
It just comes off as moralizing without the drumbeat of propaganda on your side.
So maybe a broader anti-interventionist protest that unites left and right might have been more effective.
More of a, quote, what good does it do us ordinary Americans to have all these people killed movement?
Quote, are we safer?
Are we richer?
I think it's a very interesting point, and I would say that question describes the approach that I have been trying to take myself and my own journalism and kind of the areas that I have focused on, this kind of common ground between populist left and populist right,
anti-establishment left and anti-establishment right, which includes not only opposition to The US financing and arming the Israeli destruction of Gaza, but also the US financing and fueling the war in Ukraine and just the general militaristic endless war posture that the United States is on that I think does no Americans any good except for a tiny sliver of elites who run these industries that profit so much at everybody else's expense.
And so I do think that had these protests been more generalized against the US war machine, And heightened Ukraine as an example as well.
It may have attracted a broader base of support.
But let me just say a couple things about that.
Because I'm not entirely sure in this case if that's true.
I understand it in theory.
I think it has potential.
But I think it's so important not to underestimate the enormous hold that Israel has on Large swaths of our political spectrum.
And not just our political spectrum, but American conservatism and even large parts of MAGA.
In fact, it is often the case, I really do believe, that a lot of the sentiments in defense of Israel are even stronger than the sentiments in defense of the United States.
And one of the things I, obviously if you go back and read The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt from 2007, it details a lot of that.
But I think one of the things that has happened is, I see this in Brazil.
I'll just explain in Brazil.
In Brazil, Brazil used to be an overwhelmingly Catholic country, the largest Catholic country in the world.
And it still is very Catholic, at least in the sense of who identifies as a Catholic, but Catholics tend not to be particularly...
Deviled or driven by religion.
It's just kind of a religion of Brazil, like Christianity is the religion of the United States.
Some people are very devout, but by and large, it would be a secular society with kind of Christian-informed values or Catholic-informed values.
But over the last three or four decades, there's been this emergence of a very passionate and intense evangelical movement.
There's always been evangelicals around, but it's only quite recently where evangelicals have been convinced that one of their highest religious duties is to politically support Israel and support everything it does and want to fund it with great enthusiasm.
So if you go to a protest or a march or demonstration organized by the Brazilian right, you'll see at least as many Israel flags as you will Brazilian flags because Israel plays such a central role, central role, defining central role in how right-wing evangelical politics are expressed.
In fact, there's this, just as a side note, there's this interesting anecdote where there's this drug gang, this drug gang that kind of rules the favelas.
They constantly fight for expansion.
And the head of this gang is devoutly evangelical, demands that everybody in his communities that he runs be evangelical, and he united a bunch of the communities that he gained power over, and he called it the Complex of Israel.
And all over the place, there are stars of David and Israeli flags.
They use the uniforms of the IDF.
That is how central Israel has become in the evangelical mindset.
And so if you look at...
A major part of the US Congress.
Obviously, you have American Jews who are inculcated from birth to revere Israel.
And then you have national security hawks who just see Israel as an important instrument or extension of American power.
But you also have huge parts of the MAGA movement that are composed of evangelicals who will tell you outright.
They don't want to give money to any other country in the world.
They don't want to defend any other country in the world except for Israel, and that's because God has mandated that they defend Israel.
Some of them believe that Israel has to be unified under the control of the Jews for the Messiah to return, at which time he will actually consign all Jews because they don't accept the divinity of Jesus to eternal damnation.
Jews are happy to accept that support because they don't actually believe that will happen.
But others just have a more generalized view of the book of Exodus and some of the chapters of what we call the Old Testament that God promised Israel to the Jews and said that whoever defends and supports and blesses the Jewish people in Israel will themselves be blessed.
So when I'm at a genuine religious conviction...
Or, on the part of being evangelicals, or a deeply embedded, extremely indoctrinated identification with Israel among American Jews, then it isn't so easy to just say, oh yeah, they're going to start being okay with these protests against the Israeli destruction of Gaza as long as they just throw Ukraine in as well.
Because I just, I mean, I see the emotion.
I see the emotion.
In people, when you talk about this issue, it's unlike almost any other.
For a lot of people, this is the red line, the single greatest issue, and not a small number of people, a large number of people.
Now, obviously, there's a lot of Jews who are highly critical of Israel.
They participated and led the protests.
Obviously, this show, hosted by myself, is highly critical of Israel, and I was taught all the same things about Israel that other American Jews were from birth.
And there are evangelicals who don't mix their religion with their politics, especially on foreign.
But I'm saying in general.
It is such a dominant issue.
You can pretty much, in these factions, take any position at all and they'll be fine with it.
You can disagree with them about almost anything.
People will be like, okay, you disagree with them about this and they will write you off.
Because this, this foreign country, is the highest and most sacred duty.
And it's so ironic that there's so many people who identify as America first for whom this is true.
Obviously, huge parts of MAGA and America first don't see Israel this way, but many, many of them do.
The other problem is that a lot of people on the left, broadly speaking, by the left I kind of mean just like the lefter wing of the Democratic Party.
I don't mean like the hardcore leftists who would never support the Democratic Party.
I mean like the mainstream people who are called left.
Like the Bernie Sanders, AOC, even a little inward toward the mainstream, get called the left.
They unanimously, almost overwhelmingly, support Ukraine and support the NATO war in Ukraine and want the United States to continue to fund it.
So if you were to introduce a Ukraine element into these protests, it would alienate a huge number of people who...
I don't support that at all.
These should combine.
I absolutely agree that opposing the U.S. financing and funding and arming and diplomatic protection of Israel should lead you to the conclusion that the U.S. should stop doing the same thing with respect to Ukraine.
Now, obviously, people would say, oh, they're totally different.
Ukraine is the aggressor and Israel is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim.
Of an aggression, so we should defend the victims of aggression, which is Ukraine.
I mean, obviously people have a different view on that as well.
But it's just a very difficult, it's a difficult group of views to mix because it would alienate so many people one way or the other.
And I'm not sure that if the focus was on Israel or Israel was a major part, it would really become tolerable for all those people for whom Israel plays such a vital role.
And then I guess the last thing I would say about this is that I really don't think you compare the war in Ukraine to the war on Gaza.
They're not even remotely comparable in terms of civilians killed, in terms of the destruction that it's ushering in, in terms of the humanitarian crimes and the atrocities and the war criminality.
I mean, I really think that what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, especially with the resumption now of this bombing campaign when there was barely anything left to bomb, just the absolute indiscriminate slaughter and killing, the complete destruction of civilian life in Gaza, blowing up every hospital, every university.
And I know all the arguments, Hamas was there, etc.
But I think that what we're witnessing in Gaza is...
By far the worst atrocity, certainly of this century, and I could make a case in my lifetime.
I mean, try not to be too maximalist about it.
There's a recency bias.
There's been a lot of massacres and slaughters in the last several decades, but I would certainly say that about this century because there's just zero constraints of any kind that are observed.
Zero regard for human life among Palestinians.
Zero. And it's been so sustained.
The Gazas are basically helpless.
They don't have an army.
They don't have NATO behind them.
They don't have aircraft being shipped to them.
They have very primitive weapons that make them able sort of to fight a guerrilla campaign, but not to guard against air.
It's basically a sitting duck population, a helpless population.
So I understand why.
People felt a particular need to go out and protest that, especially because our government is who is paying for it, who is arming it, who is diplomatically shielding it.
So it's a complicated question, but I do wish a lot that people would be more open to the idea that there really are huge common ground among left-wing populists and right-wing populists.
And the problem is that People on the right, including right-wing populists, are taught to hate anything on the left and left-wing populists are taught to hate anything on the right.
And that was why my attempt to examine and foster this common ground on issues like trade and war and intelligence community and military-industrial complex and corporatism alienated so many people on the left because the idea that there could be anybody on the right who has views that they would want to That they could connect to or that they could work with is so anathema to how people have been indoctrinated to think and just stay over here in their separate corners.
And so, yes, I wish there was a lot more thinking along these lines, but unfortunately, we're pretty far away from that.
All right.
Next question.
Bentley2 asks, Glenn, I was wrong about Trump and what he would do.
I disbelieve the mainstream news media depiction that Trump was a severe threat to democracy.
Can you admit that you misjudged Trump?
All of that is way too sweeping, I think, with respect to be able to just say yes or no to.
I understand the sentiment.
I guess I would acknowledge that some of the methods and tactics that the Trump administration has resorted to almost immediately has surprised me, just in terms of how extreme they are.
Deporting green card holders who are married to American citizens or PhD students because they wrote an op-ed against Israel, creating this framework that anybody should be afraid of criticizing Israel because the US government is showing that they will punish you.
And it's not just foreign citizens either, by the way, it's also Americans as well.
The Trump administration, when they submitted their demands to Colombia, demanded that Colombia, as a condition to even talking about receiving The funding that was frozen, they required them to suspend, severely dispend or expel everybody who participated anyway in the protest against the Israeli war in Gaza.
And as a result, Americans, American-born Americans, have been expelled because the government demanded it.
The government has also demanded the introduction and implementation of a radically expanded definition of anti-Semitism that makes you in violation of campus rules.
If you criticize Israel in a way that this radical definition that has been adopted in the EU that was promulgated by Israel renders prohibited.
So it's not just foreign students who are being deported.
It's also American institutions, American academia, American students who are being punished by this attempt to really outlaw and criminalize and intimidate people out of criticizing Israel.
So that is one thing that I did not expect them to do, but at the same time, you can look at other things that they're doing that are shocking to me, like invoking the Alien Enemies Act to try and proclaim that the U.S. is in war, at war, with a small, violent group of thugs and gang members from Venezuela.
We're at war.
Like we were in World War I or World War II or the War of 1812 so that you can now invoke wartime powers enacted in the late 18th century that has barely been enacted throughout American history.
And then even when it was, the people who they wanted to deport got hearings to be able to demonstrate that they weren't actually Nazi sympathizers, weren't actually threats to the national security.
And the Trump administration is not just deporting people with no hearing of any kind.
They're not deporting them at all.
Deporting means sending them back to their home.
They're deporting them, quote-unquote, by throwing them into a uniquely repressive, abusive prison in El Salvador, paying for them to be in prison, being kept there indefinitely to the point where El Salvador is saying they may stay here for life, all without a shred of due process for them to stay.
Wait a minute.
I'm not the person you think I am.
It's a case of mistaken identity or you misread my tattoos.
Some process to make sure that we're not imprisoning for life people who are totally innocent.
And so I do think, I will acknowledge that the speed of this stuff and the aggression with which it's carried out did surprise me.
I probably would have said I don't think the Trump administration would do that at all or certainly not as quickly as they've done.
At the same time, they have Trump said repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would do this.
You can watch speeches where he says, I'm going to invoke the Alien Enemies Act and mass support people, and we're going to go after foreign students and revoke their visas who participated in protests against Israel.
So I think these things are anti-democratic.
I think they're a violation of the Bill of Rights.
I expect, or at least hope, and I would say expect, at least in some cases, that our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, We'll rule that some of these things are a violation of the Constitution.
What I have a problem with is this binary assessment that Trump is a severe threat to democracy because you can look at the Biden administration, and I do think many things that they did, including their systemic campaign to have the CIA and Homeland Security and the NIH bully and pressure and coerce.
Big tech to ban dissent from their pronouncements on things like COVID in Ukraine was as unconstitutional and as severe of a threat to our Bill of Rights as anything the Trump administration is doing.
I don't think you can say one is worse than the next.
So I'm still, you know, again, we're two months into the administration, two months, just a little over.
And I don't think I've been coy.
About the serious alarm that I have about many of the things the Trump administration has been doing.
Reinitiating the war in Gaza, restarting and then escalating the bombing campaign in Yemen using rules of engagement that assign almost zero value to civilian life in Yemen.
To say nothing of these deportations, these attacks on American institutions, I think the attempt to force law firms to Restructure their pro bono program to promise hundreds of millions of dollars of free work in defense of the Trump administration, demanding that they do pro bono work on anti-Semitism specifically, like a DEI program.
Just today, earlier today, Skadden Arps, one of the biggest, most powerful firms on the planet, that wasn't even targeted yet with an executive order by Trump, but preemptively reached an agreement with the White House that was chilling and creepy.
Where they're promising not to do certain kind of pro bono work, promising to do other types in a way that aligns with Trump's political agenda.
Forcing major law firms to submit to and promise to work for free for Trump's political vision.
I do think a lot of these things are creepy and threatening and anti-democratic.
But I also did shows before the election.
Several on how many people on the right, many in the Trump circle who proclaim to believe in free speech actually have a gigantic Israel exception.
I did an entire show on what the likely influence of Miriam Adelson's $100 million for the Trump campaign would be.
I highlighted how Trump officials and people around him were vowing to deport students for the crime of Criticizing Israel, protesting Israel.
So it's not like my vision of Trump pre-election was this kind of anti-war pacifist, fully devoted defender of free speech and civil liberties.
There's obvious dangers to Trump.
I just think that the rhetoric of depicting Biden or George W. Bush or Obama as these kind of...
Beacons of nobility and devotees of American democracy in contrast to Trump, who's just this anti-democratic monster, unlike the thing we've ever seen before.
I think that is what has been wildly overblown, and I still think that.
Despite the fact that I'm certainly willing to admit that, you know, presidents stand up all the time or candidates stand up all the time and vow to do things on the campaign trail and then don't do them, as I said, I'm willing to admit that it has surprised me, not just the velocity, but the The intensity, the extremism, the aggression with which they're carrying out what I regard as obvious assaults on the Bill of Rights.
And the way in which Trump supporters are willing to basically say or do anything to justify anything that the administration does.
I mean, it took them eight weeks.
It took MAGA eight weeks to go from what they've been saying for years.
No more Mideast Wars!
F the military industrial complex.
No more endless work.
Keep that money here at home for our own citizens.
And then Trump restarts Biden's bombing campaign of Yemen, even though in 2024 Trump said he opposed Biden's bombing of Yemen.
And that was when the Houthis were actually attacking U.S. ships.
They're not attacking U.S. ships now, but Trump.
Greenlit the massive escalation and bombing of them, killing lots of civilians, and suddenly Maga's like, yeah, take them down.
Like, to do such an about-face of the things that you say you believed in, have some integrity.
Like, have some duty as a citizen.
Even if you support your leader still, even if you love him, even if you want him to be straightened, stand up and say when you think he's doing something.
Against what you said your values are.
Same with the censorship thing.
I can't tell you how many times a day I hear Trump supporters saying only American citizens have rights under the Constitution no matter how much you show them.
That the Supreme Court has said for 150 years or more that everybody under U.S. government control, including even illegal aliens, but certainly people illegally in the United States, have the protections of the Bill of Rights.
They'll never stop saying it because they need to say it to defend what Trump is doing.
Going from, we love free speech, free speech is the most important thing, to, yeah, get these Israel critics out of our country, punish the colleges and universities that allow too much Israel criticism, punish American citizens who are students if they protest against Israel, and then you just turn on a dime, and I'm like, yeah, censorship, that kind of censorship, that's really good, but it goes back to what I was saying before about the...
Primacy of Israel, but also the willingness, not of all Trump supporters, or not of all MAGAP supporters, and not even all Democrats, to justify everything their party and their president is doing, but this is typically how our politics works.
My first experience at that was, you know, I started blogging in 2005, and my focus, almost exclusively, was on denouncing Bush and Cheney and the neocons and their civil liberties assault on Under the war on terror.
And I built up this huge audience.
Some libertarians, a good number of libertarians, but primarily Democrats and liberals who just were so happy somebody was vocally denouncing Bush and Cheney on these issues.
And then 2009 comes and Obama gets inaugurated and he continues a lot of these same programs he vowed to uproot that I had been criticizing and even strengthens and extends some of them beyond where even Bush and Cheney took them.
And I've obviously continued to criticize.
Obama on the same grounds that I had been criticizing Bush and Cheney for the same policies.
And a huge number of them were like, wait a minute, we didn't really believe in that.
We were just happy you were attacking Bush.
Why are you attacking Obama?
That was my first real experience with how people's partisan brains are willing to get them to abandon even their own passionately held beliefs.
And I'm not saying anyone is above that, but I'm above it.
It's a human instinct.
We're very tribal by nature.
We develop tribalistically.
We think tribalistically, but part of the challenge of being a human being with some degree of critical thought and intellectual independence and integrity is doing your best to avoid succumbing to tribalism and reason for yourself and think for yourself about what your government is doing.
Alright, next question is Milagro who says, I'm really worried that Trump's lack of integrity with relation to Gaza will blow up his presidency and therefore our country to smithereens.
When you're fighting such nefarious forces, clarity and honesty become essential for your own protection.
So sad and scary.
Yeah, I mean, look, this goes back to a couple of the other questions about Trump.
Let's remember that it was Joe Biden who, for 15 months, Biden and Harris, that administration, Unconditionally supported everything Israel did.
Occasionally gave a few nods to the fact that maybe they should be a little more careful with civilian casualties.
When they blew up aid workers, they would say, like, yeah, we think they need to be more careful.
But we funded the entire war.
Joe Biden flew to Tel Aviv, met with Netanyahu on October 10th, and said the United States will stand behind you and whatever you think you need to do will fund you.
We promised our unabashed and unlimited commitment.
That's exactly what Biden here has proceeded to do.
And they would often say, we're working tirelessly on a ceasefire but never got one.
There was one early on for about, I think it was six weeks, not even, where there was some exchange of hostages and people held in Israeli dungeons with no due process and then it resumed and that was always the case.
But they never got near a ceasefire and then Trump comes in with Steve Whitcoff.
Who very aggressively demands that the Israelis stop and there was a ceasefire that the Palestinians celebrated.
So that's the sort of thing that I do think Trump still has in him.
The problem is, is that on almost every issue, on almost every issue, the Trump administration is filled with people with very differing views, very differing ideologies on how to confront China, on the war in Ukraine,
on domestic policy, But there's almost no person in the Trump administration, certainly not anybody who is high level, that he listens to, that he cares about, who is not an ardent Israel loyalist.
Not one.
And then you have the fact that, and I think this is such an important point to realize too, is let's remember that Donald Trump wasn't only running for president.
He was running to stay out of prison for life.
Had Donald Trump lost the election in 2024, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Democrats would have put him in prison.
They had four different felony cases against him, one of which they already got a guilty verdict in in Manhattan and three others that would have allowed them to convict him under the espionage.
They wanted to put Donald Trump in prison for a very long time, certainly for life.
And Trump was desperate to win.
He was willing to do what he had to to win.
So when Miriam Adelson comes to him and says, yeah, I'll give you all the money you need as long as you promise A, B, C, D, and E for Israel, Trump's going to say okay.
So you have a combination of this pro-Israel.
These pro-Israel Fanatics, by the way, originally aligned with Ron DeSantis, who is a far more true believer in Israel than Trump is.
Go look at all the loudest AIPAC voices and the Israel loyalists and you'll see that almost without exception they supported Ron DeSantis and his candidacy and it was only once it became apparent that Ron DeSantis had no political charisma, that there was no way he could beat Trump, couldn't even get close.
Did they all migrate to Trump to try and have influence in his royal court?
And that was when huge numbers of those people started to get close to Trump and then had Mary Maddelson and other people too, not just her, but long-time Israel supporters giving tens of millions of dollars as well.
And Trump is captive for them and he's going to do what they want.
Remember as well that Trump's daughter, his favorite child by all accounts, Ivanka Trump herself is Jewish.
She converted because she's married to Jared Kushner, who's an Orthodox Jew whose whole family has given massive amounts of money to Israel.
Not just to Israel, but to the most extremist parts, to projects to expand settlements in the West Bank.
So he's surrounded by this view everywhere he turns.
And so the idea that he's going to resist it, I think, is very difficult to imagine.
But again, the Democrats are also completely captive to the Israel lobby and to Israel as well.
And I think you saw in Trump, with that ceasefire, the capacity to deviate.
But I don't know.
I'm not sure how much Americans so far care about...
What's being done in Gaza.
I do think it's interesting that you're seeing a massive change of public opinion in the United States, especially among young people, but not only, migrating away from supporting Israel.
And if the Trump administration persists in telling people they can't criticize Israel, they have to pay for Israel's wars, constantly talking about Israel, not only do I think that could be a political problem for Trump and the Republicans, I actually think that it could...
Risks seriously increasing anti-Semitism.
At some point, as I've talked about before, people are going to say, wait a minute.
Why are we not allowed to talk about this country?
Why are people being deported who are law-abiding, productive members of society, PhDs and Fulbright scholars and physicians and specialists in kidney transplants?
Why are we deporting those kind of people because they criticize not our own country but this foreign country?
Why are we sending billions and billions and billions all the time to Israel?
I think there is a danger of that.
And yesterday in the Senate, a lawyer named Kenneth Stern, who has worked his whole life in Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Congress, he wrote books on combating anti-Semitism, but he believes that anti-Semitism is being exploited to prevent people from criticizing Israel.
And he was making that point.
And Josh Hawley, who does not have a history of being a Jewish scholar of anti-Semitism, to put it mildly, started screaming over him saying he didn't care about Jews.
He doesn't want to protect Jews on campus.
This is a guy who has worked his whole life in Jewish organizations who's being screamed at by Josh Hawley for saying, wait a minute, I don't think we should be censoring for Israel.
And his argument was that is what increases anti-Semitism.
It feeds into what have been long-standing anti-Semitic tropes, as we call them, that, oh, Jews have secret control.
over countries and they dictate to these countries what they should do.
And the more you feed into that, the more anti-Semitism you're going to increase, he said.
And I certainly agree with that also.
And I think people who are going way overboard with trying to shield Israel by attacking the free speech rights and civil liberties rights of the United States, by insisting the United States keep giving more and more and more to Israel, are playing a very dangerous game.
Risking the exact results that they claim they're so petrified of, which is the spread of anti-Semitism.
Stephen Sanford asks, how would you suggest that Americans have their voices heard if their elected officials refuse to hold town halls?
My own representative has not held a town hall for 10 months, and as such, people like myself cannot meaningfully be heard, as email phone calls are so easily brushed off.
I mean, that's always been a hard question to answer in the United States because the reality of our elections is that the people who really control elections are large donors, billionaires, oligarchs, and both parties.
There's a new book out about what happened in 2024 instead of the Democratic Party with Biden and Harris.
And it describes how what finally forced Joe Biden out were the donors.
They demanded it.
They said, we're not going to fund your campaign.
We're not going to give you the hundreds of billions of dollars you need.
to run a campaign because we don't think you have any chance to win.
And Biden tried to convince them.
You may be right, but I can promise you micro-dropping out is going to result in Kamala Harris becoming the nominee, whether we anoint her or whether we pretend to have a mini-convention and she has less chance than I do.
But the donors insisted.
That's who got Biden out, not the people rising up or whatever.
But protest movements do work.
They have toppled governments all around the world.
They have Change the course of American history, obviously during the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement and the like.
It's just that protesting can be difficult.
You need the time.
Most people work and support their families and want to be with their families and barely have enough time to breathe, let alone participate in political protests.
That's why it's typically an activity mostly for the young, for youth.
That's why college campuses have been iconically a venue of protest, but I think that ultimately that's the only thing that really lets the voice of the people be heard is when the government starts fearing the population rather than having the population fear the government.
All right, last question comes from Doc Fab, who says, Hello, I want to express my gratitude for the work you are doing.
Your fair, detailed, well-documented comments speak to people of many persuasions.
Specifically, my 31-year-old son and I, who's 75, now have many points of agreement ever since he started listening to you.
And we can talk again.
Woo! Because you adhere to your principles, more people can hear what I believe is the truth.
Many, many thanks for your good work.
I tell as many people as possible to tune in, and the ones who do are appreciative too.
All right.
Let me just say here, just because that was very, very filled with praise, that I don't choose these questions.
I rely on my colleagues to do so, in part because I want to make sure that I'm not just picking the things that I want to talk about, but things that maybe push me out of my comfort zone.
So if there's a question that's heaping a lot of praise on me, it's not because I chose it, it's because someone here thought that it raises some important issues.
I also, I do glance at the questions just to make sure that...
It's worth speaking about, but I don't really read them.
I want to have the first time that I'm really concentrating on them.
Be live on camera so that my answer is more natural and less planned.
I think that's the point of a Q&A as opposed to a show where you're sort of more committed to an idea ahead of time about what you want to say.
But this is probably the type of comment that I appreciate the most because I want to just be honest for a second about independent media.
I'm a big fan of independent media.
I think...
Independent media has become an important alternative to and check against corporate media.
It's provided people the emancipation not to be captive to corporate media to get their information from other sources.
It's why it came to Rumble because Rumble, I believe, is one of the very, very, very few companies that has a genuine commitment to free speech, not just branding themselves as such.
But the problem with independent media is that You don't have funding sources by definition.
You don't work for a gigantic media corporation the way CNN or ABC News or MS, et cetera, or Fox.
And typically you don't have big corporate advertisers.
You won't hear, you know, Aetna or Boeing or any major company, Pfizer.
Advertising on our show or anywhere on Rumble.
And so people who want to be able to be an independent journalist and make a living out of it have to rely upon the support from their viewers.
And by far the easiest way to do that, the way that's most likely to succeed, and not just succeed but potentially make you quite wealthy, is if you plant your flag In a party or a political movement or an ideology and your viewers know that that's their ideology, that's their party, that's their movement and they're going to come to rally around the flag, whatever that flag is.
And you're never going to tell them anything that upsets them or alienates them.
You're never going to criticize that flag and the movement that the flag represents.
And there is a lot of independent media like that.
I mean, it's by far the easiest thing to do.
You say, I'm on the left.
I'm a Democrat.
I'm a never Trump conservative.
I'm a MAGA person.
And then just everything you say and do is aligned with whatever you need to align yourself with to advance and defend and justify whatever that particular faction is doing.
And it is tempting.
You look around and you see How many people are succeeding in a very lucrative way by doing that?
I mean, I guess it's tempting to some people.
It just isn't for me because I think what's so important is I didn't enter journalism because that was my career goal.
I didn't enter it with any career ideas at all.
I entered it because I wanted to say things that weren't being said that I wanted them to be heard.
As I recounted, I never wanted to attach myself to a party.
I never wanted to attach myself and be imprisoned by an ideology.
I most definitely didn't want to have to remain loyal to a particular politician or a set of politicians.
That sounds so dreary and awful and anti-intellectual and just drained of all of its integrity.
I have no passion doing that whatsoever.
And so I know that by criticizing Democrats, but then also criticizing I think one of the things that is important to me is that,
and I'm quite grateful for and aware of, is that I am at a point in my career, I have enough of a platform that I've built up over many years that I don't really have to worry about Losing a part of my audience in a way that would make it no longer feasible for me to do this work.
I'd much rather lose 10 to 15% of our audience as we did almost immediately after October 7th in order to be able to pursue the truth as I see it, to present facts that I think need to be presented to critique people who I think are not telling the truth, feel good about the work.
But I realize that not everybody has that luxury.
Some people can't lose that and continue to do the work.
So I'm not necessarily judging them.
I'm just saying what I feel like I have is a platform that enables me to avoid being captive to those kinds of pressures, that kind of audience capture or the need to just validate everybody's thoughts.
And sometimes I think, like, if I don't do it, who's going to do that?
I mean, there are obviously very big podcasts that don't have an allegiance to a political Faction, Joe Rogan being the most obvious example, but Joe Rogan didn't really start as a political podcast and he's not really even now a political podcaster.
Most of what he does is not about politics.
Politics is really secondary to what he does.
And he's gained enough of a credibility with his audience that he can more or less free range on what he really thinks.
I think he has become more He's more loyal to, more supportive of Trump and the MAGA movement than he had previously been supportive of any one particular factor.
But still, he's very capable of heterodoxy.
But he's the exception because it's not a political podcast.
This is a podcast about or a show about journalism and politics.
That's obviously what I do pretty much exclusively.
I don't do a lot of cultural commentary.
And so the easiest way to do that is to just plant your flag and then validate people's views.
But when I hear a comment like that, like, hey, my son is over here and I'm over here.
And we have a very difficult time bridging the gap.
But your show enables us to do that because we can count on you to kind of be reliable and telling us the things that you really think and it's a window into having a more rational conversation than otherwise we might in terms of being super polarized.
That's the kind of complement of my work that I feel very grateful for and appreciative of and that I really value because it'd be much easier, much, much easier in my life.
And in every other way, to just feed a group of people exactly what they want to hear.
It's not hard to do that.
It's very easy.
You can just put yourself on autopilot and do it.
But one of the things that I'm particularly appreciative of in life is that the work I've always done has been work that I'm passionate about.
And if I were to do that, I wouldn't be passionate about it.
I wouldn't feel like I had any integrity in it.
I'm not perfect in it.
I'm sure there are some times subconsciously where I avoid something or I say something.
Because of that incentive, we're all human, we all have these incentives, but again, it's sort of like the tribalism I was talking about before.
It's something that I think you have to work as hard as you can to.
Avoid. Alright, those were an excellent set of questions.
If you want to be able to submit your questions, you can do so by joining our Locals community, which is the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
It has a lot of other benefits as well, which I have reviewed many times.
And most of all, it's the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism and our program 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.
As always, we really appreciate those of you who have been watching, and we'll have some closing words in just a second.
Are you looking for more freedom in your Download the Rumble app today and experience content like never before.
It's available on Android and Google.
Mac, you can take Rumble with you wherever you go, whether you're on the move or just relaxing at home.
Want to enjoy it on the big screen?
No problem.
Rumble is also available on Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire TV, LG Smart TVs, and Samsung TV apps, giving you all the power of Rumble at your fingertips.
Rumble is the platform that gives you the freedom to watch what you want, when you want.
Download the Rumble app today and make sure to search and follow my channel to receive live notifications.
Just go to the link.
in this video's description and enjoy the diverse content from Rumble's top creators.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
Thank you so much to everybody who has been watching.
We really appreciate it.
In particular, thanks to members of our local community who are submitting these excellent questions that allow us to do these Friday Q&As covering a wide range of topics.
We're extra appreciative for you as well, and we hope to see you back tomorrow night, or rather Monday night, and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern live exclusively here on Rebel.
