Trump Calls for $1.5 Trillion Pentagon Budget While Conservatives Condemn New York Childcare Plan; Was Tulsi Kept Out of Venezuela Attack Plans?
Trump calls for another massive increase in defense spending while conservatives melt down over New York's plans to increase spending on childcare programs. Then: did Tulsi Gabbard change her non-interventionist stance on Venezuela or was she intentionally left out of the attack plans? ----------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every single Monday through Friday at 7 o'clock p.m. Eastern on the dot, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
As you can see, we, as I've said several times over the past month or so, we are not in what had been our permanent normal studio.
But this time we also are not in a kind of makeshift temporary place.
Either we're in what really is, I guess, what you could call a part-time new studio that was put together by my colleagues over the past couple of days.
And I know what you're all thinking, like, oh my God, that is so beautiful.
It's amazing what has been created.
We know we have, I did a podcast or actually, I did two podcasts, one that has not come out yet, one that with Judge Napolitano that has been broadcast on YouTube earlier today.
Everybody was like, oh my God, that's the most beautiful studio we've seen.
So don't bother.
Keep saying it over and over.
We already know.
Also, I know I'm very well dressed as well.
So this is going to be a place that we broadcast from with some degree of regularity.
We'll see how much, but we shouldn't have to be running around to all different studios, just figuring out where to be each night.
That should hopefully stabilize everything.
May have a little technical glitches the first day or two when we're using this new studio, but hopefully it will work very well.
All right, for tonight, Donald Trump earlier today announced, seemingly out of nowhere, that he wanted to increase the already extremely bloated American military budget from $1 trillion, which he earlier last year in early 2025, very proudly announced would be the first ever trillion dollar military budget, annual budget in the entire history of the world.
He wants to now increase that from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, notwithstanding the fact that the Pentagon has failed audits for seven consecutive years.
Like Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine, it just simply can't even account for all the hundreds of billions and now trillions of dollars flying around.
Trump wants to pour another half of trillion dollars every year into the coffers of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Palantir and the rest of the military industrial complex that financed his campaign, all of top of which happens when the United States is already $38 billion trillion dollars in debt and counting.
And at the same time, we're going to look at all the implications of that.
Earlier today, the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, joined with the newly elected mayor of New York City, Zaran Mandani, to announce a program to provide free preschool care for children two and younger with the intention of expanding that to three or four based on the fact that it's one of the biggest burdens on residents of New York,
which is that they have children, both parents have to work, they're single mothers who have to work, and it's extremely expensive to put your kids in preschool or daycare while you work.
And so people have to get up two jobs or they can't afford their rent.
They have to make very difficult choices.
Mandani ran on a campaign of providing free pre-care and daycare to make New York more affordable.
It's something that exists in essentially every Western country.
And in comparison to the $500 billion that Trump wants to increase the military budget to for a total of $1.5 trillion, the cost of this is roughly about $4 billion for America's largest city, one of America's largest states.
And while nobody ever asked when Trump was building up this massive military buildup off the coast of Venezuela, bombing Venezuelan boats, CIA campaigns inside Venezuela to destabilize, bombing Yemen, bombing Iran.
arming Israel.
No one ever asked, hey, where are we getting that money from?
How are we paying that money?
The reaction to a program that would provide actual material benefits to American citizens immediately became, how are we paying for that?
Where's that money coming from?
That's a communist, communist proposal.
I think that contrasts between just pouring endless, infinite sums of money, not into technology that protects the American homeland, but that goes into the coffers of the military industrial complex, the U.S. surveillance state.
Nobody ever asks where that money comes from.
It comes from going further into debt to China and other countries.
But when it comes to doing something that actually benefits the materialized American citizens, that's the only time that question gets asked.
We want to juxtapose those two things.
Then a very strange situation inside the U.S. federal government where the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who's responsible for coordinating all the intelligence agencies and providing the best intelligence assessment to President Trump, obviously a vital position for any significant foreign policy the president embarks upon, has a long history of vehemently condemning any attempt to engage in regime change in Venezuela, to try and change the government of Venezuela, to bomb Venezuela.
Her 2016 and 20, or 2020 presidential campaign was largely based on condemning these kinds of military actions in general, but specifically the attempt during the first administration to destabilize and undermine the Maduro government.
She was adamantly opposed.
And yet now the Trump administration, of which she's a central part, has engaged in exactly the policy that she spent years vehemently condemning.
And we want to examine the role of Tulsi Gabbard inside the Trump administration in light of the fact that the Trump administration's policy in Venezuela is exactly that which she has been warning for years would lead to disaster and is all the sorts of things in her view that have drained America of its resources and its future financial security.
And then finally, we don't really want to cover the event in Minnesota yesterday where an ICE agent shot a woman three times in the head while she was driving her car.
I'm sorry, they shot her gun three times.
One of the bullets at least entered her head and face and killed her.
There's been all kinds of debate.
Everyone has seen it that immediately polarized pretty much along ideological lines or people on the right who generally support ICE claimed that the ICE agent was in danger of being run over, the ICE agent who shot her.
And then people who generally are opposed to ICE think that ICE has become extremely excessive, argue that she was just trying to flee.
There was no need for the ICE agent to shoot her in the head.
Turns out she's an American citizen, 37 years old.
She was raising a six-year-old on her own because the child's father died.
She had just dropped off her kid at school, her six-year-old at school.
And she then went to this protest, which obviously is the right of every American citizen to engage in.
And everybody has been debating how the wheels turned, slowing down the video.
So we don't really think it's necessary for us to do that.
Everybody has their own opinion on it.
My immediate reaction continues to be my reaction, which is, I feel like this is very unnecessary shooting.
It was much easier for him to get out of the way of the car than just shoot her.
I don't believe she was trying to run him over on purpose.
But I understand the arguments opposed to that.
You're in a position where you're the law enforcement, your life is endangered.
He had previously been injured on the line of duty.
It might have been more skittish because of that.
I believe the investigation should be able to play out about all kinds of special, uh, specialized knowledge about the trajectory of the car, how police officers are trained, what DHS regulations are, all these things that we would need to know to know the legality.
I don't want to convict this ICE agent without that.
I also don't want to declare any verdict.
Like I said, I don't, I think this has been extremely well debated.
But what I do want to cover is the fact that the director of homeland security, Christy Noam, came out almost immediately and claimed that this was an act of domestic terrorism, which would have meant that the driver of the car deliberately used violence and tried to kill people in pursuit of a political cause.
And whatever you think of what happened here, the shooting was justified or understandable or was murder.
The idea that this woman is a domestic terrorist who tried to mow down ICE agents, that was her intention.
I think is so blatantly false.
And we should object if our government is labeling our fellow citizens domestic terrorists in ways that are blatantly unjustified, to say nothing of the falsehoods that he was run down by a car, the ICE agent, that he was recovering in a hospital.
So we want to cover the implications of the way in which the government responded.
All right, before we get to all that, a couple of quick programming notes.
First of all, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble.
You can do so on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Another quick reminder: over the last couple of days, I've been on several shows.
I was on Megan Kelly's program on Tuesday.
We discussed many topics, including the military action in Venezuela.
I was on Emily Jasinski's program, After Party, where we discussed Venezuela as well as other topics.
I was on, as I said earlier, with Judge Napolitano today, talking about a variety of topics, Venezuela being one, but others as well.
So you can, if you have interest, listen to any of those, all of those, none of those, whatever you want to do.
Just wanted to let you know that those are available.
And then finally, as independent media, we do rely on the support of our viewers and our members, which you can provide by joining our locals community, where you get access to a wide range of exclusive benefits.
Every Friday night, we do a QA, which we're going to do tomorrow night, where we take questions exclusively from our locals' members that are submitted throughout the week.
We also publish original journalism there.
I published this week in English a article I had written about the U.S., Trump, and Venezuela that first appeared in the Brazilian newspaper Folio of Sao Paulo in Portuguese.
I published the translated version in English on our local site.
We frequently publish those sorts of things or the kind of benefits you get.
But most of all, it's the community on which we 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 to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
I think one of the areas of commonality that people on the populist right have found with a lot of people on the left is the idea that the military-industrial complex is far too powerful.
The deep state has run amok.
We pour huge amounts of resources into these agencies that are often wasted and abused.
They're often turned against the American people.
They come at the expense of the economic health of the country, the material benefits of the people of the United States who have been trampled on through decades of policies that clearly deprioritize their interests pretty much in absolute terms.
And the idea that Donald Trump was going to confront the deep state of the military industrial complex was, I think, an expectation both of a lot of his most faithful voters.
Obviously, not all people are voting for Trump, talking about a wide array of people with disparate views, but certainly there was a hardcore MAGA component that wanted that, that believed that.
That's something that Trump talked about.
And it was something that he had promised on several occasions as well.
Now, the opposite has happened.
When Trump first came into office, he actually did, and I'm talking about the second term, he did actually start talking about cutting the military budget.
This is when Elon Musk and Doge were very much at the forefront of the administration.
The idea was you're going to cut it, go in and cut excess spending in all of these agencies.
And you can never cut spending meaningfully on the part of the U.S. government if you don't, as Steve Bannon put it, cross the Potomac and go to the Defense Department where massive amounts of waste and graft have been occurring for years.
Not small amounts, but massive amounts.
And Trump himself said he wanted a 8% to 10% cut in the military.
And then suddenly, in a very short period of time, he turned around and said, actually, I don't want to cut the military.
I want to massively increase the military from around $850 billion to $1 trillion.
It was very important to him to have the first ever $1 trillion budget.
Here's what President Trump, after doing all of that, came out without any groundwork being laid.
This is what he called for today.
He said this: quote, after long and difficult negotiations with senators, congressmen, secretaries, and other political representatives, I have determined for the good of our country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our military for the year 2027 should not be $1 trillion, but rather $1.5 trillion.
This will allow us to build, quote, the dream military that we have long been entitled to.
And more importantly, that will keep us safe and secure regardless of foe.
That is to go from $850 billion to a trillion dollars is already a gigantic leap.
To go from $1 trillion in the same fiscal year, the next fiscal year to $1.5 trillion, you know, a 50% increase in the defense budget, an increase of $500 billion, just the increase alone that Trump wants from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, just that $500 billion increase alone.
That's more than any other single country on the planet spends on their military, including China.
Now, you can say we don't know exactly what China is spending, but there's a lot of serious analysts and estimates that have put it around $300, $350 billion at the most.
Even if you want to say, okay, it's probably around $500 billion, you're talking about just the increase alone equals the entire Chinese military, which is extremely formidable.
And does anybody actually think that our military is insufficient to defend the United States from any attack?
I mean, just putting the fact to the side alone that we have thousands of nuclear warheads seems like a pretty good deterrent to having anybody attacking our country.
And then massive military spending over decades going back to the war on terror, even in the 90s, when we were told we were going to get this great peace dividend, the Soviet Union fell, we no longer needed this massive military.
Of course, we found a way to keep going with wars, including in the Balkans and other places, bombing Somalia under the Clinton administration, even though there was no more Soviet Union.
That peace dividend never came in.
9-11 happened and there was a huge explosion that has never stopped in the amount of military spending that we do.
And of course, military spending doesn't just mean we build nice weapons that then defend us.
It means a huge transfer of wealth from the American taxpayer to the coffers of the arms industry, Raytheon and General Dynamics and Boeing, and also the intelligence companies, Booz Allen Hamilton, Palantir.
And so many of these companies and their executives were the ones who financed Donald Trump's campaign.
You look at Mary Middleseen and Bill Ackman and Paul Singer, who's a big beneficiary of the oil industry in Venezuela.
Alex Karp and Palantir.
These people are now all getting paid back at your expense with our slavish devotion to Israel, our willingness to pay for their military and wars and defend them and bomb for them, threatening Iran again.
And of course, the military industrial complex always gets what it wants.
And now Trump is proposing another $500 billion on top of the $1 trillion that he already raised the defense budget to.
Here's Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, though he calls himself the Secretary of War.
That agency has not been, the name has not been changed.
Here's what he said today: $1.5 trillion equals peace through strength.
President Trump is rebuilding our military, larger, stronger, and more lethal than ever before.
What does that mean, rebuild our military?
Rebuild?
When did it get dismantled?
Trump was president, let's remember, from 2017 until 2021.
Joe Biden didn't cut the military budget from what President Trump did.
It wasn't cut under President Obama.
When was the supposed dismantling of our military?
Obama deployed the military all over the world, and there was hundreds of billion dollars to spend on American weapons.
We have always spent far more, or for at least decades, far more than any other country in the world.
In fact, many of the other countries combined.
What do you mean, rebuild our military?
Why isn't our military rebuilt?
To the extent that we've had shortages in our missile supply and our other forms of weapons, it's because we've been using them for so many other countries, sending massive amounts of weaponry to Ukraine for five years now, going into the fifth full year.
We spent massive amounts of our stockpiles expended to protect Israel during its various wars.
We spent a month bombing Yemen with heavy weaponry.
These have all depleted our stockpiles, not defending the United States, but arming and funding and fighting for other countries.
If we stopped doing that, we would have more than enough stockpiles.
But where is this dismantling of our military that now requires rebuilding?
Here was President Trump in April, April 7th, when he was at the White House.
And this is when he very proudly announced that he would be the president who would usher in the first ever trillion dollar military budget.
We have great, great things happening with our military.
We also essentially approved a budget, which is in the facility.
You'll like to hear this of a trillion dollars, $1 trillion.
And then nobody's seen anything like it.
We have to build our military.
And we're very cost conscious, but the military is something that we have to build and we have to be strong because you got a lot of bad forces out there now.
So we're going to be approving a budget.
And I'm proud to say, actually, the biggest one we've ever done for the military.
Now, that happened, by the way, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Etanahoo was on one of his endless numbers of visits to the United States.
And you'll note President Trump said to him, oh, Bibi, you're going to like this.
Yeah, of course, Bibi's going to like it.
Israel is going to like it.
Because the more we spend on our military, the more we have to fight for them and them.
They always want American taxpayers to spend more and more on our weaponry so we can fight for them.
We can give it to them.
They want Americans to go into debt to build up our military.
And President Trump said, oh, you're going to like this.
Who cares if Netanyahu likes it?
President Trump cares.
He cares quite a bit.
And he said that explicitly.
Now, that was the first time he unveiled this idea that we're going to have the first ever trillion-dollar military budget.
Just to give you a sense for how wildly inflated this budget is, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which is a conservative foundation that is generally concerned with government debt and excess government spending, has published a study.
And there's so many of these studies.
You can find all different ones expressing the same point in many different ways.
This was for fiscal year 2024, which was the last year of the Biden administration.
It was just shy of President Trump's $1 trillion budget.
And the text there says the United States spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined.
And there you can see a graph.
The left is U.S. defense spending.
It was $997 billion.
And that's in red.
And it's larger than the total military spending of China, Russia, Germany, India, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, and Japan.
And the reason why that's particularly notable is because two of those countries, Russia and Ukraine, have a wildly inflated military budget for the obvious reason that they're involved in a multi-year war.
But even with that, we're told Russia is such a militarized power, such a grave threat.
They spend a tiny fraction of what the United States spends on its military.
China has been involved in this massive, highly technologically driven military buildup.
They spent a tiny fraction, maybe not a tiny fraction, one-third of what the United States spends.
And this is less than a trillion.
So if you're talking now about $1.5 trillion, that would probably mean the United States will be spending more than the next 15, 20, 25 countries.
And that has been the case before.
There are a lot of reports that use exactly that kind of term.
Now, just to give you a sense for the trajectory here is a Congressional Budget Office report on the macro trends of U.S. military and defense budget from 1960 to 2023.
Now, obviously, some of these numbers from 60 years ago are small because of inflation and the value of the dollar at the time.
But nonetheless, it still gives you a pretty good sense of how radically this budget has exploded.
Back in 1960, and remember, 1960 was the year fiscally when Dwight Eisenhower left office after eight years in office and chose to warn the American people about the massive power of the military-industrial complex.
That's where that term comes from.
The budget at the time was 41, which is after the fall of the Soviet Union, and it was $299 billion.
So it increased basically by six times.
And then from 1991 to 2010, not even 20 years, it went from 299 billion to 738 billion, which is basically a two and a half fold increase.
And then from 2013, 2014, the Obama years hovered around $700 billion into the Trump administration, still around the same amount, $600, $700 billion.
You get to 2019, 2020, last year of the Trump administration, $800 billion.
The rebuilding of our military budget or our military, it's been exploding under Joe Biden.
And then you had President Trump four years before that.
But now you're going to go from $916 billion in 2023 to a trillion and then a 50% increase in one year, a $500 billion increase.
Now, what's so odd about all of this is that when President Trump first was inaugurated, just less than a month after he was inaugurated, this is in February of 2025, he said exactly the opposite.
He said he wanted to cut the defense budget.
Here, the Washington Post, Trump administration orders the Pentagon to plan for sweeping budget cuts.
Quote, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered senior leaders at the Pentagon and throughout the U.S. military to develop plans for cutting 8% from the defense budget in each of the next five years, according to a memo obtained by the Washington Post and officials familiar with the matter, a striking proposal certain to face internal resistance and strident bipartisan opposition.
Now, why would that be?
Why would an attempt to just reel in this defense budget by 8% generate such a massive outrage in Washington and strident bipartisan opposition?
The answer is obvious.
Both parties are funded by the military-industrial complex, by the arms industry, by the intelligence giants like Booz Allen Hamilton and Palantir, where the NSA and other intelligence agencies outsource their functions in the form of massively lucrative contracts, all fueled by the revolving door, where people who run these agencies go out of government and get massive contracts to work at those very agencies that they help make rich.
And then at the start of a new administration, they go back into government.
Recall that Joe Biden's choice for defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, came right from Raytheon.
He was serving on the board of directors of Raytheon and then went right into the Pentagon, oversaw this massive increase in military budget, a lot of which went to Raytheon, company where he has stock, where he had served on the board of directors.
That's needless to say, everybody benefits except you.
And you'll notice that when this is all happening, when Trump says, I want to have a $1 trillion defense budget, I want to have a $1.5 trillion defense budget.
I want to bomb Yemen.
I want to bomb Iran.
I want to send all these money, these weapons to Ukraine.
I want to send all this money to Ukraine.
I want to send all this money to Israel.
I want to give them all these weapons to here.
I want to bomb all these places.
I want to have a three-month military buildup in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela, bomb Venezuelan boats, have a CIAD stabilization campaign inside Venezuela.
Nobody ever says, how are we paying for that?
We're tens of trillions of dollars in debt.
Nobody ever asked that.
The minute, though, that you propose any kind of program that's designed to help the ordinary American in their mature lives deal with the effects of declining wages, deindustrialization, or the wreckage of the 2008 financial crisis or free trade agreements, the minute you try and provide any kind of leg up or benefit to anyone that are American citizens, which is supposed to be the role of the government.
I'm not talking about radical pros.
I'm talking about proposals that exist throughout the entire Western world, highly capitalist societies.
Even though it's a tiny, tiny, minute fraction of these kinds of things that we're spending on the Pentagon, that's when you start to hear, how are we going to pay for that?
Who's going to pay for that?
And what's so amazing is the Defense Department has failed an audit seven times in a row, including last year.
It's a basic audit.
The auditors come and say, show us where this $900 billion went.
And they can't.
It disappears.
They can't account for it.
How could you possibly pour another $500 billion into an agency into a world that can't even account for the money that they're getting?
It's like sending more money to Kiev, even though you know that there's huge amounts being embezzled and skimmed and not accounted for.
Now, this is all in contrast, and it's an interesting juxtaposition because it both happened today to what happened in New York earlier today.
So, as you undoubtedly know, the newly elected mayor of New York City, Zaran Mandani, despite what you might have heard, did not run on a platform of introducing Sharia law into New York City.
He didn't run a platform of throwing gay people off of buildings or hanging them by cranes.
He didn't get elected on a platform of murdering people inside synagogues.
He was elected on a platform of affordability.
As I showed you many times before, I saw the Mandani campaign in its incipient stages when nobody thought he could win, including me.
I mean, anyone who told you that they thought he was going to win is not telling the truth, but I could see it was a very potentially potent campaign that he was charismatic.
And most of what impressed me the most was despite being a Democrat, he wasn't running around calling Trump a fascist or that sort of thing.
He went to the neighborhoods in New York City where the, that had the biggest shifts in support from the Democrats to Trump in the 2024 election.
He did this almost immediately after the 2024 election, the end of 2024, the beginning of 2025.
And he went on these streets and these were mostly non-white neighborhoods, working class neighborhoods, a lot of immigrant neighborhoods.
And he asked people, who did you vote for?
And they would say Trump.
And he would say why.
And he listened.
He didn't actor or argue.
He just listened.
And their arguments were, I'm sick of spending all this money on foreign governments.
I'm sick of the unfairness that all these people who are here illegally get these benefits that we don't while we have to work two and three jobs.
But most of all, they said, we can't afford our lives.
And they, of course, blamed Joe Biden for that.
They wanted a change.
That's what happens.
And affordability was the main issue.
It took various forms of grievance, but that was the primary issue.
And he then constructed his campaign.
I watched him do it around the things that he heard in like very impressively pragmatic ways.
I think one of the best campaign commercials I ever saw was when he went and talked to street vendors in New York who sell hot dogs or pizza.
And if you know New York City, I lived there for almost 15 years.
This is a staple of New York City life.
You're in a huge rush trying to get a cab.
You're hungry.
You don't have time to go to a restaurant.
You just grab some food at a street vendor.
It's ubiquitous.
And he highlighted how the bureaucracy in New York City is so extreme that people who apply for street vendor licenses have to wait four or five, six years just to get a license.
And as a result, there are all these other people who own licenses and they rent them for exorbitant sums.
And that means street vendors have to pay $15,000, $20,000 a year just to get a license to be a street vendor to sell hot dogs or other forms of ethnic food, which is all over New York City, every different kind.
And obviously that gets passed on to the consumer.
And that was one of his commercials why is this food ten dollars?
It should be seven dollars.
That's the kind of campaign that he ran, and one of the things that is most plaguing people, not just New York City but throughout the the United States, is how expensive daycare is now.
When I grew up, you know in the 80s, the 70s and 80s, daycare wasn't a big issue because oftentimes most kids were raised by two parents, at least in middle class, working class neighborhoods, where one parent worked and the the other parent.
Typically the mother stayed at home and took care of the kids.
So when the kids were one and two and three, you didn't need daycare.
You had one parent the father working outside of the house, typically the father, the mother staying at home and taking care of the children.
That's really not possible anymore for huge numbers of people for so many reasons.
Lots of single mothers.
The father abandons them or divorces and leaves the responsibility to raise the kids with the mother.
But even when you have two parents, it's and you're living in New York City.
Both parents have to work.
Most couples don't have the option of staying at home anymore and taking care of kids, which means you need to do something with your young kids, and that typically means putting them in daycare, and it's very expensive to put people in daycare.
So if you're working two jobs and you're struggling to pay daycare, which is an absolute necessity, then raises the question, how are you going to pay your rent?
How are you going to pay food?
How are you going to get health care?
These are the the struggles that most people are dealing with, and one of Mandani's pledges was, let's not do something super radical like go back to the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 1940s and see what he did.
It's like let's look at France and Canada and Australia and Spain, all of which provide highly affordable and subsidized or even free daycare, and that's what people voted for.
You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like those kind of policies, but that's what people in New York City voted for.
And in order to do that in New York, it's very complicated, but you need the support of the governor to fund it.
Governor Kathy Hochle is pretty much a moderate kind of Democrat, not at all a populist, but she's running for re-election.
She sees which way the winds are blowing.
That's why she endorsed Mandani, even though ideologically she would never have done so.
She announced she was going to fund that program.
Today, here from the NEW YORK Times, governor Hochle and mayor Mandani announced a plan to make New York City child care universal quote.
On thursday, governor Kathy Hochul and mayor Zoran Mandani stood together to announce a plan that would initially expand child care options for nearly a hundred thousand young children, putting the mayor on a path toward realizing the most ambitious and costly promise of his campaign and handing him a significant political victory.
Barely a week into his term, and proposing to spend 4.5 billion dollars on child care in the upcoming fiscal year, ms Hochle underscored how the lack of affordable child care has transformed from a back burner policy debate into an urgent political concern.
Advocates have estimated that about 50 000 children would enroll in the program once it is fully built out.
Now you can look at that and say 4.5 billion dollars.
That's a huge amount of money.
Where are we going to get that from in the scheme of what president Trump Trump just did?
Took a $1 trillion military budget, where there's massive waste and fraud, to put it mildly, and wants to increase it by 500 billion more, none of which improves the material lives of American citizens for the most part.
And you set that up, and no one says, where's that money coming from?
How are we getting another $500 billion?
But you take a proposal that isn't trivial, but certainly isn't bank-breaking in the scheme of what the U.S. government spends.
It has a direct benefit on the lives of working class people, on poor people, the people that Donald Trump campaign said he wanted to, whose lives he said he wanted to benefit and help.
And you see this like indignation, like it's communist rule that has happened.
And I'd be more sympathetic to the question where that money is coming from if that same question was asked about all our wars that are obviously wars of choice, like removing Maduro, bombing boats off the coast of Venezuela that have no impact, none on the availability of drugs inside the United States, certainly not fentanyl, which is by far the most deadly drug that doesn't come from Venezuela.
These are wars of choice, bombing the Houthis in Yemen, bombing Iran, threatening Iran again, as President Trump just did, that we're locked and loaded and ready if you don't treat your protesters better, kind of ironic.
Nobody ever says where are we getting that money from or to send it to Ukraine or send it to Israel, but you do something like this that actually benefits the lives of people, not give them a huge handout, just enables them to have daycare for their young kids while they work.
And the reaction is though this kind of massive socialist burden has set in.
Here is Zara Mandani during his inauguration talking about what he ran on and what he intends to do.
The cost of child care will no longer discourage young adults from starting a family because we will deliver universal child care for the many by taxing the wealthiest few.
Those in rent stabilized homes will no longer dread the latest rent hike because we will freeze the rent.
Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you'll be able to get to your destination on time will no longer be deemed a small miracle because we will make those buses fast and free.
No, you don't have to agree with all those policies, as I said, but they were democratically ratified.
I hear that all the time.
Someone complains about President Trump's immigration policy or trade policy, and people say, rightly, he ran on that.
That's what Americans voted for.
And he has a mandate for it.
Same with Mandani.
Here's one of the reasons why this resonates.
Here's from the Samoro Institute in February 2024 on the extremely onerous cost of living for people who live in New York City.
Quote, a New York City family would have to make more than $300,000 a year to meet the federal standard for affordability, which recommends that child care take up no more than 7% of total household income to pay for just one young child's care.
Put another way, 80% of families in this city, 80% of families in the city cannot afford care for even a single child based on this standard.
We obviously all have an interest in having young children taken care of properly and of making sure that people who are working can do things like pay their rent and get health care for their kids.
But again, they're libertarians.
I know in my audience who don't like these kind of programs, that's totally fine.
I simply am trying to juxtapose how relatively little this cost is that actually does improve the material lives of people, whether you agree with it or not.
You think this is the right way to do it.
And the indignation is intense compared to the vastly greater sums that are poured into our military that have nothing to do with defending the United States.
Here in the New York Times, September of 2023, how soaring child care costs are crushing New Yorkers.
Quote, as the city's affordability crisis worsens for nearly everyone, even upper middle class New Yorkers are struggling to pay for child care.
The workers who provide it are struggling too.
Now, you would have thought that Joseph Stalin himself was reincarnated and that all private property was seized in New York City if you had looked at the reaction today from conservatives to this sort of policy on the very same day that Trump announced an obscene 50% increase in the military budget to $1.5 trillion number that's hard even to say and take seriously.
Here's one major MAGA account: January 8th, 2026.
I am meme, therefore I am breaking.
New York City socialist mayor Mandani rolls out a multi-billion dollar, quote, free child care plan for kids under five across New York State with a special focus on quote home-based providers.
Here's Lauren Ingram, the fox host, a friend of mine, who I agree with sometimes and not always, quoting this very kind of pro-Israel MAGA account and wokeness.
And he said, quote, Governor Hochul, quote, New York child care spending for this year will be expanded to $4.5 billion.
And she above it wrote, Good luck, New York.
Here's Tom Finton of Judicial Watch.
New communist politician wants government-run daycare for babies.
Here's Vince Longman.
New York will be bankrupt in five years.
The Patriot Oasis, another MAGA account, breaking governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, announces that the state will expand, quote, childcare spending in the state to $4.5 billion.
Smells like fraud.
Cat Turd, who's an absurd figure, here comes more massive Democratic fraud.
Here's Nick Shirley, the MAGA influencer who is celebrated for his investigative journalism in Minnesota, who essentially is now saying that Zoe Ron's plan will promote Somali-style fraud, meaning that that investigation is now being exploited to suggest that any kind of attempt to provide child care for Americans is inherently fraudulent.
Now, there's all sorts of valid reasons to be concerned with fraud in government programs.
I was just talking about the insane levels of fraud in the Pentagon budget.
And the solution there is to increase it, apparently, by 50%, even though the government can't even pass an audit.
And there has been investigating, there have been investigations into fraud well before this viral video.
But here are the amounts that we're talking about.
U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, March of 2025, a federal jury finds feeding our future mastermind and co-defending guilty in a $250 million pandemic fraud scheme.
Military Times, December 19, 2025, just by contrast, Pentagon fails a financial audit for eighth year in a row.
Quote, the department has received a failing grade on every audit since Congress mandated annual reviews beginning in 2018.
There's only one of the government 24 major agencies never to pass.
I do think it's time to ask what the priorities are of the United States government.
Donald Trump's campaign was predicated on the fundamental claim, which I agree with, that bipartisan policies in Washington over the past 20, 30, 40 years have been about everything other than bringing prosperity and a thriving future to Americans' families, the American middle class, the working class, the American poor, what Donald Trump called the forgotten men and women.
Seems to me, like enabling your kids to be taken care of while you have to go to work without bankrupting you is a advancement of the interests of the American people.
by massive amounts of other spending that is never questioned particularly in the pentagon wars giving money to fuel foreign wars And that's what I think needs to be reassessed.
If you're angry because there's hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud in Minnesota and think that a $4.5 billion program to provide the same kind of benefits to American citizens as Western Europeans, Central Europeans, Australians, Canadians, people throughout the developed world enjoy, that that's some kind of grave socialist bot that will bankrupt America.
Where are we going to get that money from?
Ask that question to the vastly more abusive and wasteful graft and revolving door enrichment.
That is a massively bigger transfer of wealth from the American taxpayer to the coffers of these gigantic corporations and the arms industry and the intelligence world and the surveillance world, enriching Palantir than anything else like fraud in Minnesota with daycare programs or a program that Mandani ran on and people voted for.
That's the Democratic process.
If you ever find yourself asking questions, how are we paying for that?
Where's that coming from?
And you're not asking that question about always increasing and exploding military spending and wars and financing of foreign wars.
That, I think, is what needs a radical and rapid reassessment.
All right.
So.
So Tulsi Gabbard is, and I think always has been a very interesting figure in American politics, difficult to pigeonhole.
I remember very well when she was first elected to Congress as a Democrat from Hawaii.
Pretty sure it was 2014 was when she first elected right around that time.
Rachel Maddow, who loves the military, wants the Democratic Party to be more represented by CIA officers and operatives.
She loves the kind of Alyssa Slotkin, former CIA operative, who's now a senator from Michigan, or Abigail Spanberger, the newly elected governor of Virginia, who is also a CIA operative.
That's what she loves.
That's what this like kind of establishment wing of the American liberalism and the Democratic Party love.
Tying itself to the U.S. security state, to these spy agencies, they think it's good politics.
They think it produces good candidates.
When Tulsi Gabbard was first elected, Rachel Maddow was effusive in her joy and praise because she was, at the time she was elected and still is a colonel in the Army Reserve.
She had gone and deployed voluntarily in Iraq and Afghanistan, fought in those wars.
And yet she was a Democrat.
And I remember Rachel Maddow saying, you're going to hear a lot more of Tulsi Gabbard.
And she was very excited over it.
And she turned out to be right.
You did end up hearing a lot more of Tulsi Gabbard, but not in the way that Rachel Maddow was hoping.
Because by 2016, Tulsi Gabbard was already the vice chair of the Democratic Party.
That's how excited Democrats were about her.
And yet, in 2016, she was one of the people who decided that Hillary Clinton was sort of the symbol of everything the Democratic Party had gone wrong.
And she saw inside the DNC, it was cheating to make sure that Hillary Clinton won the primary against Bernie Sanders.
She wasn't, it wasn't the DNC wasn't holding fair elections, and she denounced it and resigned from the DNC and endorsed Bernie Sanders in protest.
And that was what led to Tulsi's ultimate deviation and expulsion from the Democratic Party.
Wasn't formally expelled, but really Democrats and liberals began really turning on Tulsi.
The fact that she began questioning U.S. foreign policy that was supported by the Democratic Party and Joe Biden, the war in Ukraine and all of these regime change wars.
But at the same time, she was hardly any sort of left-wing icon.
She believed in the war on terror.
She always said we should go and kill terrorist groups with great force.
We just shouldn't do regime change wars and build nation building in places like Libya and Syria and Iraq because she saw firsthand how disastrous that is.
And when she ran for president, which she did in the 2020, one of her main issues, because this is in 2019, when the Trump administration was seriously trying to bring regime change to Venezuela, it was pushed by Marco Rubio and John Bolton.
And Trump ended up concluding that he was led to believe it was easier than John Bolton, that it was harder than John Bolton led him to believe.
And that's what led to Bolton's exit from the White House.
And Trump didn't go through with it.
But at the time, it was a big deal.
And Tulsi Gabbard became extremely outspoken in denouncing President Trump for even considering regime change in Venezuela or regime change of any kind.
It wasn't like a thing she said in the passing.
It was something she said over and over, argued very vehemently.
And yet now Tulsi Gabbard is not just part of an administration, but occupies an extremely critical part of the administration, the direct national intelligence, where she is responsible for giving the president the best intelligence reports about foreign policy he wants to pursue, obviously including military conflict, bombing campaigns in Venezuela, attempts to change the government, to abduct the leader, any of that would involve the vital involvement of, would require the vital involvement of Tulsi Gabbard.
And it's obviously a strange position to be in because she has vehemently denounced for years in the most, in the starkest and most unflinching terms, anything remotely involving our military action in Venezuela.
And now she's part of an administration that is doing exactly that as one of its primary foreign policy planks.
Tulsi Gabbard really hasn't said much at all about what we've been doing in Venezuela, the bombing of the boats, the allegations that these are drug boats, the authorized CIA covert action to destabilize Venezuela that President Trump ordered.
And then also not the bombing of multiple cities in Venezuela, including Caracas, and then the abduction of its leader, Nicolas Maduro.
And everybody was wondering, this is exactly the sort of thing you said was so dangerous and disastrous that we should never do.
And now the government of what you're a part is doing it.
What is your view?
And she was very silent while this is happening.
She was posting pictures of herself doing yoga on the beach in Hawaii.
You know, she was on vacation in Hawaii.
She has the right to be, but it was a very conspicuous silence.
And then finally, Tulsi Gabbard came out on Tuesday with a tweet that didn't exactly praise everything that Trump was doing in Venezuela, but certainly didn't criticize it to the extent she offered anything.
It was praise.
This is what she wrote: President Trump promised the American people he would secure our borders, confront narco-terrorism, dangerous drug cartels, and drug traffickers.
Kudos to our service women and men, servicemen and women, and intelligence operators to their flawless execution of President Trump's order to deliver on the promise through Operation Absolute Rescue.
Now, it's a very carefully drafted statement.
It doesn't actually praise President Trump for ordering this.
She praises the servicemen and women and the intelligence operators who carried out with flawless execution what Trump ordered, but she doesn't express support for the order itself.
And she does say, which is not untrue, that he did campaign on securing borders, confronting narco-terrorism, and dangerous drug cartels, but that was never Venezuela.
That was Mexico because everybody was concerned about fentanyl and the way in which it was entering the United States through Mexico.
And President Trump's proposal was not to go and abduct Maduro or do anything with Venezuela or bomb boats on Venezuela.
It was to bomb drug cartels in Mexico.
So it's a very carefully worded statement where she's not expressing agreement with this policy, but it still has a positive vibe to it because you cannot publicly criticize President Trump if you're part of his cabinet without immediately losing his job.
But at the same time, the U.S. government just did something that for years Tulsi Gabbard was saying is disastrous and wrong on every level and dangerous.
And that is something she's not expressing.
Just to give you a sense for how emphatic about exactly this sort of thing, here she was in January of 2019 as she was gearing up to run for president.
This is when John Bolton and Mark Ruby were really pushing regime change.
She wrote, quote, the United States needs to stay out of Venezuela.
Let the Venezuelan people determine their future.
We don't want other countries to choose our leaders, so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.
Here is Tulsi speaking from Honolulu.
And again, at the time, she was a Democratic Party president.
Donald Trump was the president.
I'm sorry, she was Democratic Party presidential candidate in the primary.
Donald Trump was the Republican incumbent.
It makes sense that she would be criticizing Trump.
But listen to how she criticized Trump and on which ground she criticized Trump when she made this video.
Now, President Trump campaigned against regime change wars when he ran for president, but now he bows to the wishes of the neocons who surround him, clamoring for regime change wars that he claimed to oppose this time in Venezuela and in Iran.
These powerful politicians dishonor the sacrifices made by every one of my brothers and sisters in uniform, their families, as they are the ones who pay the price for these wars.
In fact, every American pays the price for these wars that have cost us trillions of dollars since 9-11.
Every dollar that we spend on regime change wars or on the new Cold War and this nuclear arms race is a dollar coming out of our pockets.
dollars that should be used to address the very real urgent needs of our people and our communities right here at home i mean that was pretty emphatic and And she was even more aggressive about it as 2019 unfolded and the Trump administration appeared more serious about regime change in Venezuela.
She went on Fox News with Martha McCollum and was interviewed about the Trump administration's attempt to change the government of Venezuela.
And listen to what she said then.
Here now exclusively, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a combat veteran and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.
What's your reaction to that?
You heard Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president there.
What we are hearing is an increased saber-rattling intention saying the United States needs to send in the U.S. military now to wage yet another wasteful counterproductive regime change war.
And once again, it's being done under the guise of humanitarianism.
When we look throughout history, every time the United States goes into another country and topples a dictator or topples a government, the outcome has been disastrous for the people in these countries.
That's why we should use our leadership in the world to try to broker a diplomatic solution, working with countries like Russia that have great influence over Venezuela so that there is a peaceful outcome.
Because I can tell you as a soldier, Martha, I've seen firsthand the high cost of war and pushing for this civil war, pushing for the use of military force will only end up with more suffering and death and disaster for the Venezuelan people.
What to speak of increasing these tensions that threaten our own national security?
Anytime we're in this situation where you have tensions being ratcheted up and this conflict being pushed closer and closer between nuclear-armed countries like the United States and countries like Russia and China.
Now, thus far, I think it is worth emphasizing.
President Trump hasn't really changed the regime of Venezuela in any way that is meaningful.
I mean, obviously, if you go and abduct the leader of the country and to some extent, you've changed the government, but he hasn't changed the regime.
The entire government, other than Maduro, the entire infrastructure, the communist infrastructure underneath Maduro, all in place.
People who run the military, the people who run the police, people who run the finances, the oil industry.
The longtime associate of Hugo Chavez and Maduro, vice president, is now the leader of Venezuela, although Trump is saying he's leading Venezuela, but he hasn't done full-scale regime change in a way that a lot of people assumed he would, that they were going to install the opposition, that a lot of people are demanding that he do involve parties.
So at least as of now, we haven't had the massive kind of regime change war or operation that Tulsi Gabbard was warning about, but a lot of her warnings apply to even what we've done thus far.
Like, stay out of Venezuela.
It's not our business.
And I have no doubt that Tulsi Gabbard was opposed to this.
And now there's a reporting today because a lot of people are wondering, where's Tulsi Gabbard?
Michael Tracy, the front of me of our show, the friend of our show, who spent a lot of time favorable to Tulsi Gabbard back in these years, 2018, 2019, 2020, but has now become an outspoken credit, is indignant.
He was going to be on our show tonight.
We figured, given the new studio, let's just not try and incorporate a guest see how it goes.
Maybe we'll come on tomorrow.
But he's very indignant.
He thinks Tulsi Gabbard is humiliating herself by being part of a government that's pursuing policies that she didn't just oppose, but that she emphatically objected to.
Now, I think you can observe that probably every cabinet minister, every cabinet secretary of every president has to watch the president embrace policies they disagree with.
What do they do?
And is it their immediate obligation to resign, to quit, to denounce the president?
Or is it their job to kind of stay in and fight for the things they want?
We may have them on and talk about that, but it is an odd position to be in.
And now there's reporting that because she was so opposed to what Trump was doing in Venezuela, they basically completely excluded her from the process and the planning.
Vice President Trump has sort of, Vice President Vance has sort of denied this.
She's pushing back a little bit on it, but clearly she wasn't centrally integrated into the process the way you think she would be, given that she's the DNI.
Here's the Wall Street Journal earlier today.
Tulsi Gabbard was sidelined from Venezuela planning.
Quote, White House officials excluded the top U.S. intelligence officer, Tulsi Gabbard, from Venezuela planning since last summer, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
As President Trump's national security team huddled last week to make final preparations for the operation to snatch Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Gabbard was posting social media photos of herself on a beach in Hawaii.
intelligence analysis that assisted in the overall mission from the analytical side, a second administration official said.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is among the top officials who preferred Gabbard remains sidelined from the discussions, according to the people with knowledge of the situation.
Gabbard's exclusion from Venezuela planning began last year when Trump grew impatient with Maduro and White House officials began drawing up military operations to remove him.
Very similar reporting from Bloomberg, but a lot of times the fact that there's multiple news organizations saying the same thing doesn't mean it's confirmed.
I see this all the time.
Oh, look, the Wall Street Journal is confirming Bloomberg's reporting.
So often they're just getting the same story from the same sources that are leaking, sometimes truthfully and oftentimes with their own agenda and their own motive.
So it doesn't mean it can appear in eight different outlets.
It doesn't mean it's confirmed if it's just all coming from the same anonymous sources, which appears to be the case here.
Bloomberg, U.S. spy chief Gabbard excluded from Maduro plan over past views.
Quote, the White House excluded DNI Tulsi Gabbard from months of planning to Alice Nicolas Maduro because her previous opposition to military action in Venezuela cast doubt on her willingness to support the operation, people familiar with the matter said.
The move to cut Gabbard out of the meetings was so well known that some White House aides joked that the acronym of her title, DNI, stood for do not invite, according to three of the people.
They asked not to be identified discussing private conversations.
Now, I do think it's interesting that there are obviously people in the administration wanting to suggest that Tulsi Gabbard is kind of on the outs.
And these are in some ways just sort of standard turfs.
But I can certainly understand why administration officials would not want to include her in a planning, in the planning of an action that she herself has vehemently condemned over and over and over and directed it at President Trump.
Let's remember that prior to the Trump administration's decision to bomb Iran, based on the allegation that came from Israel that they were close to developing their nuclear weapon,
they were accelerating their nuclear program, Tulsi Gabbard's testimony before the Senate in June of 2025 was constantly used to undercut that in a way that enraged a lot of people inside the White House, this I know for sure, who were eager to bomb Iran.
That clip that made the rounds.
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and supreme leader Khameeni has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
So she said, according to the intelligence committee that she oversees and runs that the intelligence is that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
They are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
They suspended it in 2003 and did not restart it.
And then that was constantly cited to negate Trump's claim, justifying why he needed to bomb Iran, that Iran was getting very close to pursuing nuclear weapons.
Trump was asked about that in June on Air Force One.
He was very proud of the bombing campaign.
And they asked him, like, your own DNI, Tulsi Gabra, said that's not true.
And here's what Trump said.
They always said that you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon.
But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one?
Because Tulsi Gabriel, Tulsi Gabriel testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon.
I don't care what she said.
I think they were very close to him.
I don't care what she says.
So that obviously is indicative of some tension.
I'm not really convinced by this claim that Trump isn't close to Tulsi Gabbard.
She campaigned with him.
She was often on the stage with him during key events.
He was very proud of the fact that he had somebody who had been a Democratic Party member of Congress supporting him.
She's the kind of person he likes.
She's very fit and pretty and well spoken, carries herself very well in the military, strong, tough.
And I think there is a kind of good personal relationship there from everything I know.
But at the same time, Tulsi isn't the warmest person ever.
She's very, very professional.
And I think between the caution she expressed about Iran, and that was her job to say what the IC's assessment was that in a way that undercut arguably Trump's most important foreign policy of 2025, which is bombing Iran, the one of which he's proudest.
According to the New York Times, which just interviewed him, he keeps a copy of the B-52 bombers on his desk because he considers that such a crowning jewel of his presidency, the bombing of Iran.
The fact that she was saying things that undercut it, intentionally or not, I'm sure didn't sit well with him.
And then the fact that he ordered a military conflict in Venezuela that she had constantly denounced.
I'm not saying I believe these reports, but I certainly think she's in an odd position.
And you can understand why planners in the highest levels of the Trump administration would not want to include someone who's really not.
The DNI is an odd position.
It didn't even exist until after 2000, November, September 11th attack.
It was one of those things like Homeland Security that was built when they exploited 9-11.
And it was kind of a bureaucratic layer placed on top of the intelligence agency.
So it's not like she's crucial for planning military operations up part of the Pentagon, but she is the chief intelligence official.
And obviously, you need good intelligence if you're going to do something like go into Venezuela and take out Maduro by abducting him from the military base where he lives.
So to exclude her would be a pretty unusual and drastic step, but I guess it makes sense.
I've been wanting to do that the whole time.
I just saw myself.
I guess that makes sense if you're going to have that kind of planning, knowing that someone might be there to argue and push back against it.
So we'll explore this a little bit more.
I'm going to try and do some of my own reporting on how much of this is true on exactly what happened, but it's certainly an interesting tension.
And I think also illustrates the fact that there are a lot of people who joined Donald Trump's campaign in the MAGA movement based on an expectation about what their foreign policy would be, only to find the foreign policy is drastically different.
All right.
So we did have a third segment planned where I want to talk about Christy Noam's extremely reckless, hasty, and ultimately unfounded accusation that the woman who was killed by the ICE agents in Minnesota was a quote-unquote domestic terrorist who purposely tried to run down an ICE agent with her car.
Again, even if you're somebody who thinks the shooting was justified, and I'm not one of those people, but even if you are, this is not a domestic terrorist by any stretch of the imagination.
I think what clearly happened there was these ICE agents came over to her.
They're masked.
They were very aggressive in how they came over to her.
She was blocking traffic.
So I'm not saying that they just didn't randomly pick her out.
She was at the protest.
She was trying to block ICE vehicles, according to the ICE agents, but they ran over to her car, very aggressively tried to open her door, pull her out.
And these are masked ICE agents.
And they're not supposed to be targeting American citizens unless they're engaged in felonies, which she wasn't.
And she seems to have panicked and just tried being in her car to drive away.
And again, you can think the shooting was justified because the ICE agent was in front of the car.
You can make all those arguments.
I don't want to rehearse those, as I said, at the start of the show.
I made my position clear on that.
We'll do some more as the investigation unfolds and there's more definitive information.
The car is going to be looked at, the trajectory of the car, where the officer was, there are lots of DHS regulations, all sorts of things that will enable us to form a more reliable judgment.
But the one thing this is not is domestic terrorism.
She didn't go to kill ICE agents with her car.
That so blatantly isn't who she was, what she was doing.
And I think when a homeland security secretary accuses an American citizen of a terrorist act, she ought to be a lot more careful.
So I wanted to delve into that.
But the reality is we are trying to get Janine Eunice, who's a friend of the show.
She, as you might recall, is the civil liberties lawyer who sued the Biden administration, was the lead lawyer in that case that made its way up to the Supreme Court.
She won at the discourse level on the circuit court level, arguing that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment's free speech guarantee by badgering and coercing and threatening big tech companies to censor dissent to Biden administration policies on COVID and Ukraine and other issues.
Supreme Court ultimately decided in favor of the Biden administration, mostly on technical grounds, some on just deference.
But Janine is the real deal in terms of being an absolutely nonpartisan civil libertarian.
She was also a defense lawyer.
She wrote a very detailed analysis of why she believes the shooting was unjustified.
JD Vance responded to her.
She's been on our show before.
She's a friend of mine.
I have a lot of respect for her.
So I want to have her come on and make her case, talk about what happened when JD Vance singled her out and critiqued her, said she was being histrionic and emotional, things that she just absolutely is not.
But I think it's worth delving into that.
I want to press her on the arguments that people who think the shooting is justified would definitely make that I've seen making as a way of kind of delving into this.
So we're going to try to get her on tonight.
I think she was very kind of torn in a lot of different directions.
She also works.
So that was part of it.
But we'll try and get her on perhaps tomorrow night or Monday night.
Tomorrow night, we're going to have our QA where we have a lot of great questions submitted by our locals members throughout the week.
If you are a locals member and you have questions that you want us to cover, topics you hope that we'll address on tomorrow night's QA, please submit them in the locals post that is created for that purpose.
Again, I published an article for those of you who haven't seen it on locals that was originally published earlier this week in Folio of Sao Paul, which is Brazil's largest newspaper.
It was published in Portuguese.
We put the English version on locals.
And that is a reminder that we, as independent journalists, do rely on the support of our viewers and members.
And the way to provide that is by joining our locals community where you get access to all those benefits I just mentioned.
And most of all, it is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
So that'll be our show for this evening.
For those of you who have been watching our program and continue to watch it, we are needless to say very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here at Rumble.