All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2025 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
01:23:02
Trump's New National Security Doctrine; What Marjorie Taylor Greene's Split with MAGA Reveals About the White House's Political Problems

Glenn analyzes the Trump administration's newly released National Security Strategy. Then: what Marjorie Taylor Greene's split from Trump says about MAGA and the future of the GOP.  ---------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook  

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, once again, we're going to try that again.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update.
It is December 8th on Monday.
System Update is our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern.
It starts on the dot punctually every single night on Rumble exclusively, which is the free speech alternative to YouTube.
As you can see, we are not in our normal studio, nor are we in the temporary location we had been using for two weeks.
It is possible that I might just eternally float around to different locations.
It's a very intensive attention economy.
If being in a different location every week or 10 days is something that keeps viewers excited and engaged and feeling really invested in the show, that is something I will do.
Everything for the journalism has always been my motto.
And that includes the need for me to just not even have a home, just be itinerant, just constantly on the move.
I am willing to do that for the audience.
And most importantly, of all for the stories.
All right, for tonight, Trump administration announced and then released a new 2025 national security strategy document, which as a title is not very exciting, but it actually has a lot of significant changes to the U.S. approach to the world, to the U.S. understanding of the world when it comes to foreign policy.
It is pretty dynamic in the sense that it is an attempt by Trump to really stamp and mold foreign policy going forward in the vision of America First, or maybe more accurately, MAGA, that he has for a long time been advocating.
It doesn't mean that it's going to be followed through.
Obviously, this is a political document, can be abandoned or changed.
Anytime it's not binding, sort of like a party platform during a campaign, in fact, it's kind of a statement of policies or values they intend to pursue.
And oftentimes it's completely disregarded or deviated from for any number of reasons.
But it does contain a lot of insight into the Trump administration's thinking about foreign policy.
This clearly had the input of a lot of people who want to change the bipartisan consensus in terms of how Washington has run foreign policy or at least seem to want to be perceived as doing that.
It's really worth digging in both in terms of what it might foretell for future foreign policy decisions of the Trump administration in the upcoming year and for the rest of the three years that remain on his second term, but also to analyze whether or not these principles have actually been upheld or whether they've been deviated from and what it causes about the U.S. role in the world.
It's a really interesting document.
I think it's really worth reporting on and going through.
And then in a not unrelated segment, there has been a lot of reporting about the fact that Donald Trump's polling numbers are quite poor, especially when it comes to the views that Americans have of his handling of the economy, of cost of living issues, which often drive American elections.
This is something that Donald Trump had had a huge support gap as compared to the Democrats, which has now not only disappeared, but really is in the negative.
And there's a lot of reporting that people in the Trump White House are trying to convince Trump that he needs to start focusing on the things Americans who voted for him had an expectation he was going to prioritize, which is not things like bombing Iran or flying to Israel every six seconds or fighting about the Epstein files and trying to stop those from being disclosed despite campaign promises for them to be released.
That's not what Americans perceive as necessary to help their lives.
It's certainly not a regime change war in Venezuela.
Instead, it's just the very basic things like inflation, cost of living, whether people can buy houses, whether they're able to start families.
And there is a pervasive and growing perception, not just among Democrats or even independents, but including Republicans, that the Trump administration is not just failing on that, but has deprioritized that.
And that has been the message of a lot of people, not just in the Republican Party, but in the MAGA movement specifically, who had been very fervent supporters of Donald Trump, who are starting to say, wait a minute, the things that we were told were going to happen, the things that we promised this movement would be about seems to have been abandoned and in many cases, thrown overboard in favor of their exact opposite.
One of those voices, probably the most notable given how loyal she had been to Donald Trump and our political career was completely inextricably linked with her loyalty to Donald Trump is the Georgia Congresswoman woman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who went on 60 Minutes last night, had a sometimes contentious exchange with 60 Minutes host Leslie Stahl, who we should always remember now works for Barry Weiss and David Ellison.
And at the same time, it was also somewhat revealing in terms of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has become a very, whatever else you think of her, thoughtful critic of the Trump administration from an America First perspective and the reasons why she believes that the Trump administration has abandoned America First.
And this is clearly linked to a lot of the growing polling trends as to why people increasingly perceive that Donald Trump is not fulfilling on his core campaign promises.
So we'll take a look at all of that, the internal debate within the Republican Party, within MAGA, the part that Marjorie Taylor Greene represents, the reasons why Donald Trump politically seems to encounter, be encountering a lot of difficulties, especially on the economy, and what their strategy might be going forward as to how they can fix that.
Before we get to all that, a couple of quick programming notes.
First of all, I don't know if you heard this yet or not, but System Update is not just a program here on Rumble.
It is also available in podcast form, 12 hours after the episodes are first broadcast live here on Rumble.
You can listen to them.
Not just watch, but listen as well.
You could watch it on Rumble and then still the next day listen to it in podcast form on Spotify, Apple, all the major podcasting platforms.
Or if you rate, review, and follow our program on those platforms, it really does help spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, as a reminder, System Update is part of independent media.
We are independent journalists as such.
We do rely on the support from our viewers and members, which you could provide by joining our locals community where you get a wide range of exclusive benefits and content, lots of features, lots of benefits, lots of interaction throughout the week.
But most of all, it is the community on which we really do most rely to support and enable the independent journalism that we do every night.
All you have to do is click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For those of you watching this show, we are very appreciative.
And for now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
It's no question that foreign policy and Donald Trump's critique of bipartisan foreign policy consensus has been central to his political movement from the start.
2016 was propelled in lots of different ways by his attack on the establishment candidate Jeb Bush and his family's foreign policy, the wars and regime change operations in Iraq and all over the world and the need instead,
said Donald Trump, to cease these foreign adventures, cease trying to nation build, cease trying to change regimes in other countries, and instead use that money to improve America and American communities and to reindustrialize the United States and to once again give it a productive capacity and to spend it on failing communities and failing infrastructure in the United States.
This is not just an ancillary issue for Trump.
This has been central to his America First ideology.
If you ask young people in particular why they've supported Trump's 2016, 2020, 20 and or 2024, a lot of them will tell you it's because we want to end the foreign wars, want to end sending billions of dollars to foreign countries while we suffer.
In fact, every young person who has a media platform, every young conservative who talks about why they voted for Donald Trump, not every, but most, will talk about that front and center as the reason because people understand that all these wars over the last 25 years, these trillions of dollars transferred to Raytheon and General Dynamics and Palantir, that is a major part of what is destroying their economic future, not just domestic policy as well.
And Trump clearly has not always delivered on that, to put that mildly.
I think the first term was much better than the second.
One of the things I always said about Donald Trump in his first term made a lot of people angry, but it was undeniably true, is that Trump was the first American president in decades not to involve the United States in a new foreign war.
There were wars he inherited, like the one in Yemen, like the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq that he certainly participated in and escalated, but he didn't involve the United States in any new foreign conflicts.
That has not been the case in this second Trump administration, although he has tried to limit the involvement.
He restarted the bombing campaign in Yemen against the Houthis, but ended it after a month when none of the things he was told would happen were actually happening, when he saw how expensive it was, how we were depleting our own stockpiles for it.
Obviously, he bombed Iran in conjunction with Israel.
He's been bobbing votes off Venezuela and threatening and promising regime change in Venezuela.
So it's hardly a perfect record to put that mildly.
I would say it's even a worse record in this first year of the Trump administration for a lot of reasons, but there clearly does seem to be an attempt to articulate a foreign policy that captures America first principles that Trump is seemingly trying to implement.
Now, again, I should say, other presidents have clearly and really vigorously tried to implement foreign policy changes throughout the entire Obama administration.
The two terms, all you heard from them is we need to pivot away from the Middle East and focused on Asia because of the threat of a rising China in their eyes.
And yet, most of the Trump administration, the Biden administration involved endless focus on the Middle East, feeding Israel arms and money, bombing multiple Middle East countries and other Arab and Muslim countries as part of the war on terror, expanding the war on terror with almost no attention paid to Asia and China.
And yet you look at every national security strategy of the Obama administration that says we need to stop prioritizing the Middle East.
That's no longer part of our vital interest.
And instead, shift our focus to China.
It really just never happened.
So the fact that this is said, obviously, doesn't mean it's happening, but it does reflect the thinking of a lot of top-level officials in the Trump administration.
That's certainly my experience and my reporting, having spoken with many of them and hearing these sorts of things from them for a long time.
And so this document is intended to embody that, to officialize, to concretize these ideas in the form of an official strategy.
Like what is the strategy of American foreign policy?
Okay, we're told the yet Houthis are bad and the Iranians are bad and the Russians are bad and the Maduro is, but like, what is the strategy?
What are the driving ideological precepts that drive American foreign policy as the Trump administration sees it?
Interestingly, the Democrats have been really obsessed with China and depicting China as an enemy.
This was a very aggressive part of the Biden administration.
Also, as I said, the Obama administration.
And there was a perception, there is a perception on the part of the Republican Party that watches Fox News, that doesn't really pay close attention to anything but the propagandistic framework that they've been fed for many years, that Democrats are weak on security, that they love the Chinese Communist Party, and that Trump is the one standing up to the Chinese.
And none of that is really true.
One of the most provocative acts that was done in the last 25 years when it comes to U.S.-Sino relations is Nancy Pelosi going out of her way to meet with what she called the prime minister of Taiwan, which is an extremely provocative action toward China because of the ambiguity surrounding U.S. policy toward Taiwan.
Is it a part of China?
Is it an independent country?
Would we defend them?
Would we not?
And then Biden himself on multiple occasions became the first president since Nixon, who instituted the deliberate ambiguity policy, which says we won't say whether we would go to war to defend Taiwan or not.
Whether Joe Biden said repeatedly he would take the United States to war to defend Taiwan if China attacked it or invaded it.
And it was a very bellicose, aggressive policy.
The rhetoric that has come out of the Trump administration, both in the first term, but especially the second term, has been much more accommodating to China.
Obviously, Trump has pursued economic competition in the form of trade wars and tariffs and the like with China.
But you barely ever hear Trump talking militarily about China, military conflict with China.
He knows it would be utterly insane for both countries to try and pursue.
And Trump talks very respectfully, very admiringly about Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader.
Always talks with great admiration about him.
And already a couple months ago, the Trump administration was signaling that China will not, in fact, be its priority in terms of foreign policy.
Here from Politico back in September, you see this story here that says the Pentagon plan prioritizes the homeland over the Chinese threat.
This marks a major departure from the first Trump administration, which emphasized deterring Beijing.
And of course, these are actual trade-offs that you have to decide which ones are worth pursuing.
Do you want to have a massive military buildup, deploy major military assets in the South China Sea and all to encircle China with military bases in the Philippines and South Korea and Japan and Australia?
Costs immense amounts of money.
Or do you want to try and direct American resources to strengthening the American homeland, which was the idea of America First, and all despite a lot of bellicose rhetoric from a lot of Republicans, Trump administration is saying our priority is defending the homeland and not confronting China abroad.
And that was already before the national security strategy was issued.
So let's look at this new document.
Again, I know it could sound bureaucratic.
The national security strategy, just some like boring bureaucraties coming from the Pentagon.
In general, it's actually an interesting document, but in the case of Trump administration, which is signaling major changes in a very blunt, direct way and explaining why, some good, some not so good from my perspective, but I think it's really worth understanding.
So here is the document.
It comes from the White House.
The official title is the National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
And it's obviously intended to signal to Americans, but also to the world, what the American, what the overarching strategy of American foreign policy is.
What are we trying to achieve with foreign policy?
And here's part of what the intro says, and it's designed to ask.
What is American strategy?
What is our strategy when it comes to foreign policy?
What are we trying to achieve principally?
We're trying to spread democracy.
Are we trying to free people around the world?
Are we trying to vanquish dictatorships?
Trying to steal people's resources.
Are we trying to protect Israel?
Are we trying to protect Europe?
What is our strategy when it comes to foreign policy?
And here's what the Trump administration had to say, quote, American strategies since the end of the Cold War have fallen short.
They have been laundry lists of wishes or desired ends, have not clearly defined what we want, but instead stated vague platitudes and have often misjudged what we should want.
After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination in the entire world was in the best interest of our country.
Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests.
It then goes on.
At the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites, oh, it goes on.
After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region.
We will deny non-hemisphere competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities or to own or control strategically vital assets in our hemisphere.
Now, this is a remarkably aggressive and expansionist view of foreign policy.
I think at first part of the Trump administration's critique of decades of bipartisan foreign policy is absolutely right.
It's just been this like hodgepodge, like, hey, there's a little war over here in Yugoslavia.
Why don't we go over here?
Hey, why don't we like spend hundreds of billions of dollars to take part in the fight over who controls various provinces in eastern Ukraine that have, as Obama said, nothing of vital interest to the United States.
Let's go change the government of Libya.
Why not?
Even though Gaddafi has always done business in the United States, because Britain and France wants us to.
And it's just like this one series of intervention and wars and bombing and involvement in other countries without anyone having any idea how it affects the lives of American citizens, which is why I think Trump's 2016 campaign resonated so much.
At the same time, this idea that we control the entire hemisphere, that includes the Caribbean, North America,
Central America, and South America principally, and that we're going to reassert this Monroe doctrine from the early 19th century that basically says no other country can have any real input or presence in any country, not bordering us, but any country in the entire region.
This is a remarkably aggressive way of looking at the world.
Because the reality is, is that a lot of countries in that region, in Latin America and in the Caribbean, have concluded that the United States is a very unreliable partner, or even not just unreliable, but oftentimes hostile.
There are many, many countries in this region that the United States has militarily invaded, has removed their democratically elected government, has bombed, has destabilized.
And a lot of these countries don't want to have a dependence on the United States.
So they're seeking relations with other countries, especially China, but also Russia and others.
One of the main reasons why Donald Trump imposed sanctions and tariffs on Brazil was not because he's mad that there's censorship inside Brazil or that Bolsonaro is being persecuted.
He couldn't care less for Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro is in prison.
Trump couldn't care less.
Trump's doing nothing.
They're not even enforcing the sanctions they imposed.
They're by all accounts about to lift them.
What angers Trump is that Brazil now has a larger trading and commercial relationship with China than with the United States for the first time in Brazil's history.
And that Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, intended to be an alliance led by China and Russia and India that will have a great amount of influence in this hemisphere with Brazil and Argentina.
And if it joins, it won't under Malay, but it probably will at some point.
And essentially what we're announcing is, no, you countries, all of you countries, dozens of countries have no right to allow foreign militaries onto your soil to orient yourself towards China.
This is our property.
This is our territory.
We rule here and nobody else does.
And if you're going to announce that policy, you have to enforce it.
Because if you don't enforce it, nobody will take credible, will see as credible anything else that you're saying.
And when I talk to Trump squatters about why they suddenly out of nowhere, even though nobody called for it before, support a regime change operation in Venezuela.
This is the kind of thing they say.
Oh, go read the Monroe Doctrine.
No, the reality is Venezuela has been close to Russia historically.
It's been close to China recently.
It has relations with other countries because the United States has suffocated it, has sanctioned it, has cut it off from the world.
So now we're going to go and change the government of Venezuela to put in some puppet regime that is going to cause civil war and instability because of this new Monroe doctrine that says that or what's calling the Trump corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, that they all have to do what we tell them.
They all have to cooperate with us.
If you think that's ever going to lead to an alleviation of the posture of endless war of regime change operations, it's not.
It'll do exactly the opposite.
And the fact that this is not just being asserted as some sort of academic theory, but instead is accompanied by what is clearly a push on the part of major officials in the Trump administration for a war with Venezuela, for regime change in Venezuela, indicates the kind of dangers this new doctrine possesses.
You have noticed, by the way, that the talk of Venezuela in the media has receded.
It doesn't seem like it's ramping up into an imminent invasion or bombing campaign the way it did a couple weeks ago.
They're still bombing these boats.
And Trump again said today that every boat they blow up saved 25,000 lives.
Which assumes the boats are filled with drugs, assumes the boats are headed toward the United States, none of which they have evidence for.
But even if it were the case, they've blown up 22 boats.
So if every boat saves 25,000 lives, That means that they've thus far saved 575,000 American lives using Trump's map.
Even though for all of 2024, the grand total of Americans who died from overdose deaths is 70 to 80,000, most of which was from fentanyl, which has nothing to do with Venezuela.
So if 70 to 80,000 people are dying from drug overdoses, how are they saving 25,000 people each time they blow up some dumb little boat?
in the Caribbean that they can't even show is coming to the United States.
But anyway, this is part of the danger of this kind of a doctrine.
All right, let's go on and let the Trump administration elaborate a little bit on what they mean, because the second question is, what do we want in and from the world?
And this is what they say, quote, we want to ensure that the Western hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States.
We want a hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion and ownership of key assets and that supports critical supply chains.
And we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations.
In other words, we will assert and enforce a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
All right.
There's a lot of inconsistencies or contradictions within this statement, within this vision.
Beginning with the first sentence, which makes a lot of sense and I think should be the policy of the United States, which is we want to ensure that the Western hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States.
If you want to prevent mass migration to the United States, why are you choking off the economy of Venezuela and Cuba?
Which is just amiserating the population and motivating them to leave the country out of desperation and come to the United States for lack of other alternative.
Wouldn't you want the Venezuelan economy to thrive?
Wouldn't you want the Cuban acute economy to thrive so that people are incentivized to stay in their country and not come to the United States?
Beyond that, if you accomplish what the administration says is its goal, which is the removal of Nicolas Maduro from power and the implanting of some rich elite puppet government from Caracas, it's going to produce enormous amounts of instability and violence and civil war has happened every single time we did a regime change war.
Look what happened in Syria.
Look what happened in Libya.
Look what happened in Iraq.
Did that create stability?
And all of that instability is going, nothing is better for drug cartels and instability.
And it's also going to force people to want to leave Venezuela.
There's going to be violence.
There's going to be all kinds of economic suffering, at least as bad as the one now, if not more so.
So why not lift sanctions and let Venezuela and Cuba grow financially so that people want to stay and go back?
We've been sanctioning these countries for decades.
They don't work to change the government.
They just amiserate the population, which in turn leads them to want to come to the United States.
But also, I thought we closed the southern border.
So what is the issue now with migration?
Why are we involving ourselves in Latin American countries to prevent migration when we've already closed the southern border?
Trump did promise that and fulfill that.
He deserves credit, even if you don't agree with the policy for campaigning on a major promise and fulfilling it.
That is one thing he actually absolutely did.
So how does this Monroe doctrine, which John Bolton wanted in the first term, to go and change the government of Maduro based on the Monroe Doctrine?
And what about all the other countries now, Colombia and tons of others that are led by left-wing governments that don't want to be under the American thumb?
What are we going to do to all those governments?
We're going to just spend money deploying military.
This is something that sounds, I guess, intuitively like an American first policy.
Like, yeah, we're going to rule the hemisphere for our benefit.
But the amount of money that's going to cost, the amount of investment in military industrial corporations, the transfer of wealth to Raytheon and Boeing and Palantir, the amount of wars that's going to provoke, the CIA operations, the covert regime, the instability.
And none of that is going to serve the American people on whose behalf President Trump campaigned.
All right.
Next part.
Ask this question.
What are America's available means to get what we want?
America retains the world's most enviable position with world-leading assets, resources, and advantages, including the world's leading financial system and capital markets, including the dollar's global reserve currency, and an enviable geography with abundant natural resources, no competing powers physically dominant in our hemisphere.
So this is the issue.
The founders believe that we shouldn't even have a standing army because of how corrosive it is to the republic.
They believe that a well-regulated militia should be maintained and that when Congress authorizes war, which should only happen when a country is attacking ours, Congress declares war, the army is then conscripted, and then the president becomes the commander-in-chief.
That was it.
That was the vision.
They didn't want a standing army.
And one of the reasons we could do that is because of this enviable geographic position.
Who's going to attack the United States?
Who's attacking our homeland?
And the Trump administration says, oh, drug cartels and immigrants, but we cut off the border.
And that is what I think most people believe, that we should not go to wars with countries that aren't attacking us.
And a national security strategy that says that will be one that I can really get behind.
All right.
Just a couple more on this.
The next section is the strategy.
And one of the first section headings is, we have a predisposition to non-intervention, which sounds good.
We should be predisposed to not intervening militarily or otherwise in other countries.
Why do we want to intervene in other countries?
Why do we want to control other countries?
We can't even manage our own.
And this is what the paragraph says.
Quote, in the Declaration of Independence, America's founders laid down a clear preference for non-interventionism in the affairs of other nations and made clear the basis.
Just as all human beings possess God-given equal natural rights, all nations are entitled by, quote, the laws of nature and nature's God to, quote, a separate and equal station with respect to one another.
For a country whose interests are as numerous and as diverse as ours, rigid adherence, though, so I want to say amen to that first part.
The founders absolutely advocated for non-intervention.
They didn't believe we shouldn't be going around controlling other countries or interfering in their countries.
Now, it's a strange thing to publish, as there's been a push by at least a lot of people in the administration to regime change Venezuela.
And so you have to reconcile that.
And here's how they attempt to do so with two paragraphs that completely negate everything that came before it.
And they say this, quote, for a country whose interests are as numerous and diverse as ours, rigid adherence to non-interventionism is not possible.
Yet this predisposition should have a high bar for what constitutes a justified intervention.
By the way, when we talk about what they describe as a rigid adherence to non-intervention, it doesn't mean pacifism.
A pacifist would say we shouldn't fight even if a country attacks our country.
Very few people believe that.
No one's advocating for that.
That's not what the foreign policy debate has been about.
Interventionism is when you go and you intervene in other countries to change their governments, to change things in their society.
Why can't we have a rigid adherence to non-interventionism?
Obviously, again, the exception is if the country is attacking our country, that's what wars are for, to defend yourself.
But that is, unfortunately, a huge exception that they inserted into what otherwise would be a good paragraph.
Then they say this: balance of power.
The United States cannot allow any nation to become so dominant that it could threaten our interests.
We will work with allies and partners to maintain global and regional balances of power to prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries.
And then there's a paragraph here called flexible realism.
And this is what it says.
U.S. policy will be realistic about what is possible and desirable to seek in its dealings with other nations.
We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.
We recognize and affirm that there is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in acting according to such a realistic assessment or in maintaining good relations with countries whose governing systems and societies differ from ours, even as we push like-minded friends to uphold our shared norms, furthering our interests as we do so.
Now, what that really is saying is like, yes, we are going to be very close allies with the world's most savage dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Jordan, in the UAE, in Qatar, as well as all kinds of nations with very imperfect democracies or even autocracies.
And I appreciate this candor that says we can't go around the world forcing every country to adopt a system of government that is identical to ours.
It's respecting civilizational differences.
Not every country believes what we believe.
The Chinese believe something radically different than the Russians.
The Russians believe things radically different than the Muslim world.
The Muslim world believe radically different than the American world.
And that's okay.
That's okay.
We don't need to go around with cultural imperialism or political imperialism and demanding that every country adopt a Jeffersonian democracy.
But, and we haven't.
We've never done that.
We've justified wars pretending that's what we're doing.
We said we're going to do that in Iraq.
We said we're going to do that in Vietnam.
We said we're going to do that in Libya and Syria.
We even say that that's what we're doing in Ukraine.
Now we're going to say that we're going to do it in Venezuela.
That is not the foreign policy of the United States.
We don't care at all if other countries have dictatorships or democracies, nor should we.
It's not our business.
And I think it's refreshing to say it is not our business to go around the world dictating to other countries how they should manage their own affairs.
It then goes on to say, and this is about China.
We intend to, it's cut off here, but it says we intend to prioritize deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.
We will also maintain our long-standing declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not purport any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
We will build a military capable of denying aggression anywhere in the first island chain, but the American military cannot and should not have to do this alone.
Our allies must step up and spend and more pertinently do and more importantly do much more for collective defense.
And then it goes on.
A related security challenge is the potential for any competitor to control the South China Sea.
This could allow a potentially hostile power to impose a toll system over one of the world's most vital lanes of commerce.
Strong measures must be developed along with the deterrence necessary to keep these lanes open, free of quote, tolls, and not subject to arbitrary closure by one country.
Now, the Chinese were hoping that this improved relationship of Trump and the United States would get Trump to relent on this idea that our position is Taiwan is its own nation and kind of give in to this idea of the Chinese or at least move closer to it.
And it doesn't do that, but it really avoids using militaristic rebellicose language, threatening Taiwan like Joe Biden did, threatening China like Joe Biden did over Taiwan.
And makes clear that China is not really the priority.
It is a objective.
It is a priority to keep the sea lanes free and clear.
But the section on China reads very muted, much more moderate and less antagonistic and revocative than the Biden administration and the way they talked about China.
All right, the last section, or actually, we have two more sections, one in the Middle East, one on Ukraine.
The one in Ukraine says this, and I think this is one of the things I think Trump deserves credit for is he has genuinely attempted to resolve the war in Ukraine.
Not with the fairy tale in which a lot of Europeans and Republican Democrats in the U.S. are laboring that Ukraine is winning the war, and that way you can force the Russians to leave all of Ukraine or whatever their fantasies and delusions are.
The reality is that Russia is winning the war.
It now controls 23% of Ukraine's territory.
It hasn't lost any in a long time.
The chance is far greater that Russia will continue to gobble up Ukraine, then Ukraine will push out Russia.
And all that's happening is Ukraine is being destroyed.
The United States and Europe are sending billions and billions and billions of dollars.
It's being stolen and embezzled by Kiev, very predictably.
And huge numbers of people are dying.
That's it.
So here's what the, and I want to say there's this broader context, which is the Europeans have gone completely insane when it comes to Russia.
They really believe they're going to war with Russia.
I mean, it's like it's 1963.
The French and the British and the Germans talk about Russia, to say nothing of these little shitty, weak, irrelevant, tiny Eastern European countries like Estonia that thinks it's important because they put people and officials in these bureaucracies and in Brussels and the EU, talk all tough, Like about going to war with Russia as though they could.
But the Europeans see Russian as this, like Russia is this implacable enemy that wants to, and they really, a lot of them are preparing for war with Russia.
It's not rhetoric.
You listen to them, they really believe it.
Even though their militaries are a joke.
Here's what Trump and the administration say about that.
Quote: It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.
I mean, that is the only rational thing there is to say about the war in Ukraine.
It is in our interest.
It's in the Ukrainians' interest.
It's in the European interest.
It's in the Russian interest to end this war as expeditiously as possible.
And Russia is going to end up with Ukrainian territory.
It already did in 2014 after the U.S. helped foster a coup with Victoria Newland and John McCain and a bunch of Democrats like Amy Klobuchar.
And then in response to the Western-led coup in Ukraine, removing the elected president before his term expired because he was too quote unquote meaning toward Moscow and replacing him with a government picked by Victoria Newland.
The Russians said, aren't you not going to control Ukraine running there border?
And in response, we're going to take Crimea as a response.
It's a defense mechanism against your influence.
They're never going to get Crimea back ever.
Nor are they going to get back the provinces that they now control.
And anyone realistic knows that.
But also, the Trump administration is saying, why are we considering Russia an enemy?
Why do we want hostilities toward Russia?
It's better to work with Russia, to have strategic alliances and partnerships with Russia.
It's a huge economy with lots of resources.
Why are we choking them off from the world too?
I'm glad to see the Trump administration saying this.
And then, as for Europe, they say this, quote, our broad policy for Europe should prioritize re-establishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia.
Ensuring Europe is able to stand on its own feet and operate as a ground of a group of aligned sovereign nations.
Cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory with the European nations, ending the perception and preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.
What is NATO even for now?
Just keeps growing and growing and growing.
It was designed to prevent communism to fight communism in Western Europe or the Soviet Union tended.
There is no more Soviet Union, Russia is no longer communist.
NATO has done things like bomb Yugoslavia and regime change Libya, which obviously has nothing to do with the defense of Europe.
NATO is archaic.
It's outdated.
The Europeans are worthless.
Not saying the Europeans should be our enemies, but the idea that we need the Europeans, that we should pay for their defense, that we should subsidize their social net by letting them spend little money on defense so that we continue to protect them with our umbrella.
Those things make no sense.
Meanwhile, the EU is imposing their censorship mentality in the United States, trying to impose massive fines on Acts saying it's not for censorship, even though of course it is.
And if Europe is really as anti-American as they like to beat their chest and seem they should end their dependency on the United States.
Stop using the United States to defend yourself and beat your chest and threaten to go to war with Russia on your own.
I think that too is an important orientation.
And then finally on the Middle East, this is what the Trump administration says, quote, Middle East partners are demonstrating their commitment to combating radicalism.
A trend line American policy should continue to encourage.
But doing so will require dropping America's misguided experiment with hectoring these nations, especially the Gulf monarchies, into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government.
America will always have core interests in ensuring that Gulf energy supplies do not fall into the hands of an outright enemy, that the Strait of Hormuz remains open, that the Red Sea remains navigable, that the region not be an incubator exporter of terror against American interests or the American homeland, and that Israel remains secure.
Can't have a national security statement without promising to keep Israel secure.
We can and must address this threat ideologically and militarily without decades of fruitless, quote, nation-building wars.
Trump absolutely reveres the Gulf state monarchies, the dictators of the Gulf state.
I really believe Trump could snap his fingers and transform the United States into any other country.
He'd probably pick the Emiratis or the Qataris.
He loves them, the Saudis.
From Trump's perspective, what's not to love?
They have massive, enormous, virtually infinite wealth, which Trump always respects.
They love ostentatious architecture and ornate gold decorations, which Trump has always loved.
The aesthetic there is very similar to what Trump always has loved.
It's kind of like tacky, ostentatious display of wealth.
Loves that.
And their governments are doing business with the Trump family.
Their sovereign wealth funds pouring billions, investing billions in Jared Kushner's funds for him and Ivanka Trump.
I mean, Trump loves these countries, and that's why he was so angry when Israel bombed Qatar Qatar.
And what he's saying is like, we need to stop caring what these countries are.
We don't care if they're Democrats.
We don't care if they give civil liberties.
We don't care if they kill their dissidents.
It's not our business.
Who cares?
Let them use slave labor.
And the problem is, is that he's saying here that we need to make sure that that region doesn't export radicalism and violence to the United States.
The problem with that is that, as David Petraeus has said, as generals have said for years, although they often are forced to apologize, as Osam bin Laden said, the reason there's so much anti-American hatred in that region, one of the reasons, I mean, one of the reasons is because we overturned their governments and imposed dictatorships on them.
So we should probably stop doing that.
We imposed sanctions on Iraq and killed several hundred thousand people.
We should probably stop doing things like that.
No one likes that.
But a major reason is our blind, endless support for Israel.
Everybody watch what happened in Gaza.
They hate Israel for it, but they also hate the United States for it.
So if one of our goals, which it should be, is to reduce anti-American hatred that can export terrorism to the United States, we should reassess the relationship with Israel because what does Israel have that we need?
It's no oil in Israel.
There are no rare minerals in Israel.
Israel is not a vital interest.
It's a desert.
Why do we need Israel?
I want to say we need the Gulf states because they're the ones with all the oil.
That at least makes sense.
But Israel never made sense as this country in which we invest so much of our loyalty and resources and protect what it's very contrary to this entire statement.
So this is at least a coherent statement.
It explains itself.
It's a clear strategy.
I have a lot of doubt, to be honest, if the Trump administration will adhere to this.
There's just too many people that have continued to infiltrate the Trump administration who pretend to believe in this, who don't.
If there's a regime change in Venezuela that we institute, whether through covert CA action or accommodate or bombing or even land bombing or an invasion, worst of all, you'll know that a lot of this is worthless.
And while there's some things I certainly don't agree with here, including the commitment to this muscular assertion of American power throughout all the countries of the hemisphere, which United States really can't enforce any longer, I think this is a reasonably faithful view of what the America first foreign policy was supposed to be, as Trump articulated in 2016.
It hasn't adhered to this.
The fact that they're reaffirming it is better than rejecting it explicitly.
Time will tell whether or not this actually ends up being anything other than a bunch of words on paper.
You know, you've already been popping a pod into the machine every morning, but what does it do?
Anything besides give you a short-lived spike?
That's what I've been wondering about for a long time.
Because rejuvenative pods do more.
Each pod is crafted with clean Arabic coffee infused with C-A-A-K-E, highly researched ingredients supporting metabolism, cellular energy, and long-term health.
The result, smooth energy, no crash, sharper focus, and mornings that actually stay productive.
I use them because they help me perform better mentally, physically, and in the way I show up for the people around me.
This is a phrase Michelle Obama always uses.
She's like, it really matters a lot how you show up in the world.
I think a lot about my hair because this is one of the ways I show up in the world.
If you're using pods anyway, switch to ones that fuel your day, not drain it.
That's obvious.
Like, if you're using pods anyway, switch to ones that fuel your day, not drain it.
Why would you not agree with that?
Visit 1775coffee.com/slash glenn and try rejuvenative pods now.
Upgrade your coffee.
Upgrade your life.
Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on 60 Minutes last night where she talked about a lot of topics with Leslie Stahl, the longtime host of 60 Minutes, which is now controlled by the Ellison family and Barry Weiss, and adheres to their agenda.
And Marjorie Taylor Green made a lot of, I believe, cogent critiques of the Trump administration and why she believes it has violated what she understood to be American first principles, the things that got Marjorie Taylor Greene involved in politics in the first place.
She's far from the only person saying these things.
And all this would be kind of, I guess, irrelevant, sort of like inside DC party intrigue.
If not for the fact that large numbers of Americans now believe the Trump administration is failing in its principal duties of fulfilling the obligations that it owes principally to American citizens and the material well-being of their lives, here from Gallup in late November, Trump's approval rating drops to 36%, new second-term low.
And there you see on screen the massive increase in the red line, which is the spike in the red line, which is the disapproval rating starting really in the last couple of months.
It had been fairly stable, slightly declining.
And then starting in September, October, it really jutted up to 60% disapproval, while his approval rating has sunk to 36%.
That is quite anemic.
And the image of Congress is actually even worse.
If we could put that on the screen, I think we have a new crap.
There it is.
Congressional job approving by political party.
The red line is Republicans, which this is from 2025 in February to November.
So this year, they had been hovering around 60% after Trump's victory.
That's normal.
Bank tank it for a good while and then completely dropped off the clip right around the same time in September.
So now that it's 23% approval rating overall, Independent and Democrats up for, this is actually, I'm sorry, I described this truck the wrong way.
This is the overall approval rating by Republican, Independent, and Democrats of Congress as an entity.
And the reason Republicans had been so high is because the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress.
And you would expect Democrats to be very low.
Democrats have stayed between 5%, 4%, 8%.
They're now at 4%.
Independents have fluctuated some day at 15%.
That's incredibly low.
It's the Republican view of the Republican Congress that has completely collapsed from 65%, where it was for most of the year down to 23.
Very precipitous decline.
Look at that.
And I don't think it's really that difficult to understand why that is.
This is when you had a lot of doubts about the economy emerging.
This is when the whole debacle at the Epstein files happen where demanding the release of the Epstein files was a long-term MAGA priority.
And then suddenly Trump started bizarrely insisting he wouldn't do it.
This is when talk of a regime change war in Venezuela emerged.
Kind of a multitude of factors.
But that is a very precipitous drop-off among Republicans.
Here's Henry Anton, Harry Anton, who's the CANN polling analyst who kind of combines the mannerisms of a 1950s comedian in the cat skills, like in the porch belt, you know, like Jewish vaudeville, with what is a pretty competent and I would say even mostly unbiased analysis of polling data.
Here is Harry Anton talking about principally the complete drop-off of what had been a pretty strong Trump demographic, which is young people, and yet young people feel completely betrayed by Trump.
Here he is on CNN.
And as you know, Donald Trump put in the best performance for a Republican presidential candidate among young voters since George W. Bush did back in the early 2000s.
And you know, he started off his term, his net approval rating among voters under the age of 30 at plus 10 points.
Hey, that's pretty gosh darn good.
But you come over now, according to CBS News YouGov.
This isn't falling into the water.
This isn't going undeceived.
This is going into a deep, dark, black hole.
Look at that minus 46 points.
That is a shift on the net approval of 56 points in the wrong direction since February.
My goodness gracious, you know I love looking at these swings, looking at how the electorate changes.
You rarely, rarely ever see swings.
We look at a lot of polls.
We almost never see drops this big, this quickly.
Any sense of why?
What issues may be driving it?
Yeah, no, look, we've been talking about it.
We were talking about it last segment with Mr. Matt Egan.
It's the economy, stupid.
I mean, just take a look here.
Age 18 to 29 on Trump and the economy.
Back in October of 2024, who did those under the age of 30 trust, Harris or Trump?
It was Trump by 10 points, according to Marquette University Law School, Paul.
Look at where his net approval rating is now on the economy.
Minus 52 points.
Very similar to what we saw in the CBS News YouGov poll in terms of his overall drop in support on the net approval rating.
And it's minus 52 varies.
Yeah, it's just stunning.
I mean, that was a more restrained version of how Harry expresses himself, but you could see what I meant.
I think my description of him in the preface was quite vindicated.
In any event, and look, I have no problem with it.
I think it's important to be expressive and not be boring on television.
That's one of the main problems is they're all so kind of pent up that nobody wants to watch them.
They're all so constrained to what they can say.
In any event, enough of him.
If you were to look back at the first Trump presidency, it was drowned in all kinds of distractions and scandals, much of which, if not most of which, was the fault of the media that was doing everything to sabotage him and all of its allies and the establishment.
You can't say that about the Trump first year.
Think about what the Trump first year has entailed.
The policies, the priorities, what Trump talks about.
How much of that has been about the economy?
How much of that has been about affordability?
How much of that has been about the things young Americans are repeatedly saying make them so concerned and anxious about their future?
The inability to buy home, the inability to start a family, healthcare.
That's been basically absent.
Trump started out bombing Yemen, got a feast to our deal in Israel that unraveled.
Food Israel met with Den Yahoo a bunch of times.
That was a big, big factor.
He's constantly focusing on Israel's war in Gaza, justifying it, supporting it.
Failing to get that war in Ukraine ended, which I think Trump did himself a disservice by promising to do in 48 hours, even if that was hyperbole, 24 hours.
It's been 10 months.
He hasn't gotten it done, even though I do think he, as I said, deserves credit for his efforts.
The Epstein files, which not isn't just a distraction, but is such an embarrassment on so many levels for the Trump administration.
Even if a lot of Trump supporters went from, this is the biggest issue in the world.
The Biden administration is protecting the worst predatory ring on the planet to, oh, this doesn't matter at all.
People understand that that was Trump completely abandoning his promise once he saw what those files were.
Now we've been talking about Venezuela and bombing boats.
And meanwhile, people just are struggling in the economy and they feel like they're being ignored again, which is what drove Trump's strength in the first place.
And there are a lot of people in Trump world now starting to realize that, but Trump himself seems resistant.
They've been trying to get him to talk about affordability.
That was the word Zoran Mandani used every day, over and over from the start to define his political campaign that ended up being remarkably successful, no matter what you think of him.
And the reason he did that was because he went on the street.
I've shown you this video many times.
After the 2024 election, instead of screaming, America is full of racists and America is full of sexists.
And that's why they didn't vote for Kabbalah.
He went into the working class neighborhoods, the multiracial working class neighborhoods in New York that most shifted from Democrats to Trump.
And there were big shifts in New York City, in non-white working class communities, immigrant communities, to Donald Trump.
And he asked why.
And they said, all economic issues.
Some of it was like, what?
We're sending all this money to Israel and Ukraine.
Well, our communities fall apart.
Some of it was immigration, but like, why do we give immigrants?
Why do we pay for illegal immigrants to have free hotels?
Well, we can barely afford houses and housing for our families.
And a lot of it was we just can't afford to live here anymore.
We can't afford the rent.
We can't afford transportation.
We can't have health care for our kids, like basic concerns.
And he listened to all that and he realized the way to win an election was by addressing people's concerns and their concerns were affordability.
And that became his sole campaign thing, basically.
And they're trying to get Trump to talk about those issues now because of these polling numbers.
Now, Trump doesn't care in a sense because he doesn't have to run again, but if the Democrats take over the House in 2026, it would be very hard, but certainly possible.
Or the Senate, which is less likely, but depending on how bad things get, also possible.
Trump's in a lot of trouble.
He could be impeached again.
Certainly his agenda would be dead.
Nothing but investigations.
And so they're trying to get Trump to talk about, stop talking about Venezuela and Netanyahu and the military and tariffs.
They start talking about affordability, but Trump doesn't seem very persuaded.
Here he is at the White House when asked about this.
You know, there's this fake narrative that the Democrats talk about, affordability.
They just say the word.
It doesn't mean anything to anybody.
They just say it.
Affordability.
The word affordability is a conjob by the Democrats.
They say affordable.
I watched the other day where some very low IQ congresswoman talked about affordability, affordability, affordability.
She had no idea.
But the word affordability is a Democrat scam.
They say it and then they go on to the next subject.
I mean, in one sense, he's not wrong about that in the sense that the Democrats don't particularly have a very clear agenda about affordability, which is why so many Americans hated Biden and Harris and felt like they were ignoring their interests and gambled on Trump with a change.
But I don't think it's a very good, smart strategy to go around talking about, ah, this affordability crap totally bores me.
It's nothing.
It's a Democratic hoax.
Because that word is a very understandable word.
It's very central to people's lives.
There's Wall Street Journal reporting from the weekend on what the Trump White House is doing and the kind of borderline panic they're experiencing over these polling numbers and what they understand needs to be the overwhelming focus, not on foreign wars, not on insulting Europe, not on the Epstein files, not on whatever, but on the things that people voted for Trump to do.
Here's what it says, that a headline is Trump's top advisor's wage campaign to ship this focus to high prices.
Quote, just before President Trump left the White House for Thanksgiving, top aides met with him in private in his private dining room to discuss inflation and the economy and hopes he would calibrate his message on affordability.
In another meeting last month, this time in the Oval Office, AIDS presented Trump with surveys from one of the president's own pollsters detailing voters' concerns about the cost of living.
His team has begun showing him social media posts that illustrates how Americans view the economy.
Top aides have taken turns talking to their boss about his economic messaging and the need to emphasize what voters are feeling.
And almost every senior White House official is involved in the effort.
It is part of an across the White House bid to change Trump's messaging on the economy, as many advisors worry that voters' concerns about high prices are dragging down his presidency and hurting Republicans.
In conversations in recent weeks, Trump advisors have encouraged the president to talk more about what the administration is doing to increase wages, lower the cost of housing, and reduce inflation, the people said.
So far, Trump has largely avoided any, quote, I feel your pay messaging, telling AIDS that the economy is strong, and he dismissed Washington's focus on affordability as a trap set by Democrats.
In many of the private conversations, the people said, Trump argued Biden was responsible for inflation, not him.
Now, this was, in my view, the most toxic, fatal, and obvious mistake Democrats and their media messengers made.
Polling throughout 2023 and 2024 kept showing that people viewed the economics, the economy and their financial situation as horrible, as frightening, as unraveling.
And rather than admit that or address it, the leading lights of the liberal partisan Democratic messaging world, like people on MSO, CNCN, and in the White House kept saying, no, no, the problem's not the economy.
The economy is outstanding.
It's a lie.
These people are too stupid to understand how great the economy is for them.
Look at the stock market.
Look at this.
Look at that.
The problem is the messaging.
Problem is these people don't understand all we've done for them.
That's the only problem.
But the economy is doing great.
The economy is not doing badly.
And people who think the economy is doing badly because they can't pay their bills don't want to hear how great the economy is.
And Trump is somebody who is a natural salesman, a pitchman.
He loves to talk about how he presides over the greatest economy in the world.
And in some metrics, maybe that's true.
There were some metrics in the Biden administration that's true.
But if people don't feel it in their lives, it doesn't matter.
And this seems to be the trap Trump is falling into, which is, no, my economy is great.
And the more he says that, the less people feel like they understand, and more importantly, are working on the things that they feel like plaguing their lives.
Now, one of the people who has been most, I would say, eloquent and outspoken about all of this is Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And one of the reasons is, I've said this before, is I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is one of the very, very few people who is an organic and authentic adherent of MAGA.
She's not somebody who's been in Washington 20 years and supported Bush Cheney and Reagan economics and then suddenly had to switch and pretend they like America First or MAGA because now Trump came in and that became popular in the Republican Party.
No, she got into politics because of her conviction that this was the kind of politics she was waiting for.
It spoke to her and she believes in it and still does.
And she didn't turn on Trump for any reason other than because she feels like the Trump administration is pursuing policies that wildly diverge from the America First ideology as she understood it.
And she was on last night on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl and here is part of what she said in this critique.
For an America First president, the number one focus should have been domestic policy and it wasn't.
And so of course I was critical because those were my campaign promises.
Once we fix everything here, then fine, we'll talk to the rest of the world.
She said in her resignation video that the president has gone establishment, forsaking the base and her.
If I am cast aside by the president and the MA political machine and replaced by neocons, big pharma, big tech, military-industrial war complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class.
Are you saying that the president now is siding with those establishment powerful people and against MAGA?
He passed a crypto bill that helped out all the crypto donors.
He has served Israel's interest, even attacking Iran.
He has served big pharma.
He didn't take away the COVID vaccines that we want to see taken away.
So those are the areas that are still getting everything they want while the people were still out here saying we want to see action on areas for the American people, not for the major industries and the big donors.
I mean, that is a critique that is extremely coherent.
It's difficult to argue.
You can say maybe it's exaggerated.
Maybe you can point to instances where you think it's not true.
But that overall critique is very much what's driving this perception.
And it's very hard to argue with it.
And at one point, Leslie Stahl asked her, so are you saying you're not MAGA anymore?
And she said, I'm America First.
And Leslie Stahl said, what's the difference?
And Marjorie Taylor Green said, MAGA is Trump's movement.
Whatever he wants it to be, that's what it is.
America First is an ideology.
And I think this MAGDA movement has deviated from it for all the reasons she said there.
Now, one of the ironic things about this is that Trump worked so hard to put CBS and its parent company, Paramount, in the hands of the Ellison family, who are huge supporters of Israel, huge supporters of Trump.
You may remember that when Paramount under the ownership, the previous ownership of Sherry Redstone, and Sherry Redstone said the reason she wanted to sell Paramount was because after October 7th, she lost interest in media.
She only wants to focus on Israel and advocacy for Israel.
So it's not like that was a hot bet of left-wing pro-Palestinian anti-Israel activism previously.
But Trump, they needed, Sherry Redstone needed the Trump administration's approval to sell the Paramount on antitrust grounds.
And Trump had sued 60 minutes over what he claimed was a deceptive edit of Kamala Harris, which it was probably deceptive.
Tried to help her, but there was no way that was a meritorious lawsuit for Trump.
But they paid Trump $15 million to settle that lawsuit.
And then afterwards, Trump gave the go-ahead to this acquisition by the Ellison family of Paramount to pay off Sherry Redstone.
And so Trump thought, oh, CBS is now in the hands of my friends.
And he clearly thought that meant positive coverage.
And he was not happy that they put Marjorie Taylor Greene on last night to critique him in that manner.
And he went to True Social with this just very Trumpian rant in contrast to the kind of sober critique that Marjorie Taylor Greene offered, a very Trumpian, rambling rant about CBS and Paramount and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Here's what he said.
On True Social.
Why don't you vote against?
It's the True Social tweet.
See if we can blow that up.
There.
This is what Trump said today.
Get ready.
It's a wild ride.
Okay.
The only reason Marjorie Trader Brown in parentheses, Greens turns brown under stress.
And like, thing is, you know, Trump has lost a little bit when it comes to nicknaming, giving derogatory nicknames.
I thought Marjorie Trader Green was pretty good.
It wasn't great, but it was pretty good.
It was a funny exchange.
Trump was, a reporter asked Trump like on the tarmac, oh, Marjorie Taylor Green said this and Trump interrupted her.
And he said, you mean Marjorie Trader Green?
Okay, that's that's cute.
That works.
But this new thing that he's doing, Marjorie Trader Brown, and then every time he has to explain, Green turns brown under stress.
If you have to explain this joke every time, this is not, this is very clunky and not very clever.
But in any event, that's what he's calling her, Marjorie Trader Brown.
The only reason Marjorie Trader Brown went bad is that she was jilted by the president of the United States.
Certainly not the first time she has been jilted.
Too much work, not enough time, and her ideas are now really bad.
She sort of reminds me of a rotten apple.
Marjorie is not America first or MAGA because nobody could have changed her views so fast.
And her new views are those of a very dumb person.
That was proven last night when washed up Trump hating 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl, who still owes me an apology from when she attacked me on the show with serious conviction that Hunter Biden's laptop from hell was produced by Russia, not Hunter himself.
Totally proven wrong.
Interviewed by a very poorly prepared trader, who in her confusion made really stupid statements.
My problem with this show, however, wasn't the low IQ trader.
It was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air.
They are no better than the old ownership.
You just paid me millions of dollars for fake reporting about your favorite president, me.
Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten worse.
Oh, well, far worse things can happen.
P.S.
I hereby demand a complete and total apology, though far too late to be meaningful from Leslie Stahl and 60 Minutes for her incorrect and libelous statements about Hunter Biden's laptop, President DJT.
All right.
It's like exhausting to read that.
But the part about Leslie Stahl within that rant lies a valid critique.
And it is actually something that was so egregious that it deserves more attention.
It was right at the heart of the Hunter Biden laptop reporting when Twitter and Facebook censored it and the entire media followed the CIA's lead or the X51X intelligence agency officials lead to claim that it was Russian disinformation.
Such an obvious lie.
I knew it was a lie.
I insisted on producing the material for that, reporting the material for that reason.
The liberal Democratic Party partisans at the intercept prevented me.
That was when I left the intercept.
They just knew that this was not Russian information, disinformation.
It was such an easily provable, authentic archive.
And when Leslie Stahl interviewed him, Trump tried to talk about it.
And she said, she interrupted him.
She said, we can't talk about that.
He said, why not?
She said, that's not proven.
You know, it's not proven.
That is not, that's Russian disinformation.
He was like, no, it's not.
And she kept insisting, yes, it was.
And obviously, she never went back and apologized.
Every media outlet proved that the archive was accurate.
But in any event, Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't saying anything she didn't say previously.
She was an Israel supporter previously.
And she's someone who's new to Washington and learned more and more and changed her view on that.
But the core values that she's advocating are she's saying, I didn't move at all.
The American Trump administration is serving all the interests that he was supposed to subvert.
Military industrial complex, big tech, Wall Street, the banks, crypto.
These are all the corporations and military-industrial conflicts are still getting their way in Washington.
And the ordinary person is getting screwed.
And, you know, he doesn't have an answer for that other than she's an idiot.
She's low IQ.
So Marjorie Taylor Green, in response to that very kind of spastic, rambling attack on her, responded very concisely.
And this is what she posted.
She said in response, I am America first.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
And then she posted side by side the two APAC tracker images, which track how much pro-Israel lobby money everybody has received.
And then you see on the right in the red, Donald Trump has received $230,473,000, whereas Marjorie Taylor Green's image is green because she has refused to accept APAC money ever.
And if all she said was, I am America first.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
And use those images juxtaposed side by side to make the point, which I think very much kind of illustrates the conflict at the heart of this movement.
All right, now just I just want to show you this one part between Leslie Stahl and Marjorie L. Green.
Because let's remember, Leslie Stahl is a lifelong and vehement supporter of Israel and Zionism.
Leslie Stahl is Jewish and she's always been very pro-Israel, always extremely pro-Israel.
She now works for Barry Weiss and David Ellison, who are both also Jewish and even more fanatical supporters of Israel.
And this is what CBS News is for in part is to promote anti-Semitism narratives and all of this and pro-Israel narratives.
So of course, Leslie Stahl tried to imply that Marjorie Taylor Greene was an anti-Semite for her position on Israel, but this is how she tried to depict Marjorie Taylor Greene as an anti-Semite.
Listen to this.
Why did you vote against the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act?
Since I've been a member of Congress, we've had several resolutions that constantly denounce anti-Semitism.
I've already voted denouncing anti-Semitism many times before.
It becomes an exercise that they force on Congress, and I simply got tired of it.
Is there no value in having the United States Congress reaffirm the fact that they denounce anti-Semitism in the face of a growing issue, a growing problem?
We don't have to get on our knees and say it over and over again when we get on our knees.
Yes, we do not have to get on our knees.
Well, most members of Congress disagree with you.
Well, most members of Congress take donations from APAC, and I don't.
APAC is an American pro-Israel lobbying group.
Green's perspective indicates a growing rift within MAGA over support for Israel.
Are you MAGA?
I am America First.
And that's not the same as MAGA.
MAGA is President Trump's phrase.
That's his political policies.
I call myself America First.
But you're not saying you're MAGA.
I'm America First.
Yeah.
First of all, there's so much to say about that quickly as our last point, but it is always amazing to me.
She's like, why not condemn anti-Semitism for like the 432nd time, says Leslie Stahl.
The American right spent the last decade mocking, ridiculing, insulting, laughing at, rejecting every claim of bigotry, discrimination, marginalization, racism that came from every minority group.
And now suddenly the pro-Israel wing of that movement, it just has such a hair trigger for finding anti-Semitism anywhere.
Like little, like they're like Obermann professors, like, oh, you criticize this person.
You're anti-Semit, you're anti-Semitic.
You use this word that has anti-Semitic overtones.
It's just like exactly what the woke left and their excessive, Their worst excessive abuses were doing.
That's why Marjorie Green is like, I'm just, I got sick of voting every week for anti-Semitism.
Like, we're against it.
But the worst part is, Leslie Stahl, and this genuinely amazes me.
And maybe it shouldn't.
Maybe I'm being naive.
Leslie Stahl asked about the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, even though she either has no idea what that act is and what it says, or knows what it says and is purposely lying.
I don't know which one it is.
But the anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, despite its lovely, benign, neutral, innocuous phrase and title, was not about condemning anti-Semitism.
It actually changed the law.
We've covered this many times.
It was a censorship law designed to wildly expand what anti-Semitism means under federal law that can get you punished in all sorts of ways in an educational context or elsewhere for expressing certain views that are now deemed anti-Semitic.
They wildly expanded what anti-Semitism means to mean things like you're not allowed to compare the actions of the Israeli government to Nazism.
Even if they're totally comparable and you believe they are, that opinion is outlawed.
You're not allowed to say that certain individuals seem to have higher loyalty to Israel than the United States, even if they so obviously do, even if they're Ben Shapiro Barry Weiss, even if they say they do, you're not allowed to say that individual there who happens to be Jewish seems to have a higher loyalty to Israel.
That's an opinion that is banned as anti-Semitism under this bill.
You're not allowed to say that Jews are responsible for the murder of Jesus Christ.
You're not allowed to say that Israel as a country is a racist endeavor.
You can say the United States is a racist endeavor.
You can say China is a racist endeavor.
You can say any other country in the world besides Israel is a race endeavor.
You just can't say it about Israel.
There's so many examples like this.
It is a full frontal legislative assault on free speech.
And there was Leslie Stahl, either out of total ignorance or total deceit.
And there may be different people.
This is a big team of producers and editors, Barry Weiss, who, you know, some of them may be ignorant.
Some of them may deliberately be trying to deceive Marjorie Taylor Green about that vote, trying to imply that she voted no because she doesn't want to condemn anti-Semitism, even though she's done so 4,762 times since she's been in Congress.
Hyperbolically speaking.
But Rand Paul was against this bill.
So was Thomas Massey.
And they explained that this was one of the worst free speech assaults on American engineers legislatively.
And I totally agree.
We've covered this at length.
That's what that bill was.
President Trump ended up forcing that definition, that radically expanded hate speech code on countless universities as a condition to getting back their funding.
So now at American colleges and universities, you can be punished as a student, as a faculty member, if you express any of those prescribed views.
This is a movement that promised to end censorship and usher back in free speech and instead imposed classic censorship and has, and Leslie Stahl has the audacity to ask Marjorie Taylor Greene about this as though all it did was just very politely, educatively denounce anti-Semitism.
And Arjur Teller Green refused to do that because she was the anti-Semite.
A really illustrative problem inside the MA movement that I think is really harming President Trump and the Republican Party.
Turnout in midterms is crucial.
It doesn't matter if a lot of MA people still kind of side with President Trump if they feel unenthusiastic about what he's doing.
And the Democrats have a lot of enthusiasm.
The midterms have the potential to be a massacre.
And unless the American First Movement realigns with American First Principles and does so very quickly, Marjorie Taylor Greene is not going to be the exception speaking out.
Going to be the absolute rule, not just among members of congress, but the American people more broadly.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder system update, it's not just a program that you watch here on Rumble.
I've said this a thousand times.
When are you going to people get this?
It's also available in podcast form where you can listen to it, not just watch it.
You can watch it and then listen to whatever.
Combine it, and you can do so on Spotify apple, all other major podcasting platforms, and even if you don't want to listen to it, what you should do is go there to those platforms and and rate and review and follow the show, because it really helps spread the visibility of this program.
Finally, as independent media, independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can help provide by joining our locals community, where you get a wide array of exclusive benefits, but also, most of all, is the community on which we really do most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly through that community.
For those of you who have been watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative.
And we hope to see you back tomorrow night in every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
▲
Export Selection