Can I ask a question about the nicotine

pouches? Yes. Does it melt in your mouth

or do you have to spit it out later? You

can spit it out. You can swallow it or

you just savor it. I mean, you throw it

in like a you would a dip of tobacco.

Okay. But you just let it sit there and

then it suses your nervous system with

life-giving nicotine and it it really

does feel like the hand of God is

massaging you. But does it feel like the

high of smoking a cigarette? It's

simultaneously, if you can imagine the

Zen paradox, higher alertness

accompanied by deep relaxation.

So, you you really are No, no, it it's a

zen experience. You're like cat-like in

your readiness, but you're fully And how

long does it last? I always have one

going. Sometimes if things are, you

know, if I need it, I'll I'll put

another one in. So, I've got 18 milligs

of nicotine. But that gives me an unfair

advantage. You're banging 18 milligrams.

Woo. That's impressive. I don't like to

because it everybody else kind of

recedes into the background and I become

this kind of colossus when I do that and

I feel guilty about it. Hubris is

inevitable at that point. So I usually

keep it to one. I mean I could use a new

addiction. Oh yes. What's the gateway

drug level? Uh what would you prescribe?

sits between caffeine and they sell a 3

mig but you know there's a transition

like all all great addictions like it's

not instant you you do vomit at first

but then but then your body acclimates

it's kind of like heroin in that way you

know like when you oric you just you got

to power through IA you heat twice and

then you're addicted and then

enlightenment

[Music]

let your winners

[Music]

Rainman David

and we open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you.

[Music]

All right everybody, welcome back to the

number one podcast in the world after

Tucker Carlson's amazing podcast. That's

right. Tucker is back here on the All-In

podcast with Chimath Polio Hapia, your

chairman dictator and the Zar David

Saxs. Not from the White House, he's

from the suite, but he's here back on

the program looking great. Look at the

collar. Brion. I ordered three or four

bronies after last week's show, guys. I

did. I'm getting in the Brony. Well, I

have the all- in expense accounts now.

What' you call it? Brony. Brion. He'll

be paying for it over 72 months. 72

monthly payments. the layaway. You as a

firm or CLA. Pray for that.

Hey, uh Tucker, last time you were here,

uh you famously famously gosh, we been a

year of feedback on your last

performance. Thank you for coming back.

We got a lot of crazy feedback from the

private equity housewives, but I got

more feedback.

They love me. But you know what? You're

in you're in deep. you're in deep

because I I'm here in LA and the Los

Angeles studio wives group is really

really pissed off at you because they

feel that they're the problem. They feel

they're a much bigger problem than

private equity housewives. So, Hollywood

Studio heads wives versus private equity

wives. I know some of them um and

they're absolutely a bigger problem, but

there are fewer of them. God, it's kind

of hard to get critical mass. Yeah,

exactly. They're they're a smaller

threat. They're kind of an elite unit.

You know what I They're like Delta

Force. Got it. They have less money,

too. You know, they don't get as much in

the divorce as these private equity

wives. Got it.

So, they they're coming in like a SWAT

team. If you want to send them in to

deal with a very specific issue, great.

But they're not going to cause as much

bedum globally as the private. They

cause a lot of misery though, as one

McKenzie Bezos. Exactly.

Oh my god. All right. Listen, let's get

a plug in here. All-in summit, fourth

year. Tucker's coming this year, I hope.

Uh, September 7th to 9th in Los Angeles.

The goal, have the world's most

important conversations, yada yada yada,

blah blah blah. Apply for a ticket.

Allin.com/ yada yada yada or

allin.com/summit

to apply for a ticket. Freeberg is out

this week. So, Tucker is here and my

lord, a lot going on in the news. Let's

start with the immigration protests

slash riots slash ice actions in Los

Angeles. I'm actually here last Friday.

Protests broke out after ICE raided Home

Depot, a fashion wholesaler. In total,

44 people were arrested by ICE. 10 times

as many, 400 and counting, from the

protests. They even ran into uh ICE that

is ran into a strawberry field in Oxnard

uh to just randomly pick people up. It

seems uh at least a half dozen Whimos

were vandalized and burned. 20 plus

businesses looted

and uh Whimo narrowed their area and

it's spiked to 30-minute wait times. Uh

so that's a first world problem. Riders

throwing bricks, Molotov cocktails,

shooting fireworks at law enforcement.

Completely unacceptable. Two men were

charged with throwing molotov cocktails

at officers.

Trump deployed the National Guard, 2,000

at first, then 4,000 apparently.

And uh apparently there's a battalion of

Marines here, 700 of them. Karen Bass

instituted a curfew downtown LA 8:00

p.m. to 6:00 a.m. And uh prosecutors,

federal prosecutors that is, are trying

to identify hundreds of people. Nuome

Bass denounced the raids obviously and

uh they're blaming Trump for escalating

the situation. Trump and members of the

White House responded by calling out

California's weak leadership and now we

have protests popping up everywhere

else. New York, Chicago, Austin, DC.

Tucker, you grew up in Southern

California, I think. You I did. Yeah. LA

and La Hoya. I mean, are these riots

more or less than a Lakers championship?

Uh how concerning are they to you? Who's

to blame?

Well, as measured by violence, they're

less profound than, you know, what

happened in 2020 after George Floyd

died. They're way less dangerous than

say the Watts riot um or the Rodney King

riots in LA, but they're much more

profound. I mean, it it really does.

They're certainly a bigger deal than

anything that happened in Fort Sumpter,

for sure, which kicked off the bloodiest

war in American history. The federal

government has as a core duty uh the

right and responsibility to enforce

immigration law and police the borders.

That's what the government is. That's

what the federal government is really.

And so if you contest that, it is like a

threat to disunion fundamentally. I

mean, I think there's a lot at stake.

And we reached this point because a

series of paradoxically weak federal

governments allowed sanctuary cities to

continue literally for decades. each one

its own form of insurrection against the

central government. And maybe maybe you

don't believe that the federal

government has a right to pass laws

restricting immigration. It's not in

charge of the integrity of the borders.

You know, that that's a kind of

philosophical or constitutional case I

guess you could make. But most people

accept that those are federal duties.

And once you accept that, you can't

allow states or municipalities to flout

the law any more than you could allow

Central High School in Little Rock to

keep black students out or whatever. I

mean, certainly federal troops have been

called in for much less. And I think the

longer this continues,

the greater the threat of disunion, the

greater the threat of reaching a point

where you I don't know, you can't drive

from New York to LA. We take a lot for

granted in the country. And the main

thing we take for granted, I think, is

freedom of movement between states. But

you could easily imagine that ending

like soon in the same way that you can't

drive from, and I cuz I've tried from S.

Apollo to to Rio in Brazil, pretty first

world country. It's too dangerous to do

that. You could easily see that

happening here. So, I think once the

Trump administration commits to putting

down the riots, to enforcing federal law

by force, it kind of can't back away

from that. Like I, you know, and that

raises a question, who's funding these,

etc., etc. And I think it's a really

interesting question. We should find

out. I don't think the only arrest

should be on the scene. I do think the

drug cartels are involved flexing their

authority in California. They have a lot

of control in California as I'm sure you

know, etc., etc. But the bottom line

question is, does the federal government

have a right to enforce federal

immigration law? Yes. And if states are

out of compliance with that, it doesn't

have any option but to force the issue.

Traumatha,

when you see this amount of

paramilitary, milit literal military

coming in, the dragging of, you know,

handymen from Home Depot, as opposed to

the strategic way this started, which

was, hey, we're going to go after the

felons, we're going after the gang

members, the really bad folks. And then

this time now it seems like, hey, we're

just going to roll up to a farm. We're

going to roll up to a Home Depot. Just

grab everybody. We'll figure it out

later if their, you know, papers check

out or not. Are you in favor of the,

hey, all 20 million got to go? I'll call

that the Steve Bannon position. Or are

you into in the 5% of alien, illegal

aliens who are criminals, they need to

go, but maybe a path to citizenship for

the other 19 million. I think the

president was asked a version of that

question today, Jason. And I think what

he said is there are people that have

worked for example on farms for 20 to 25

years or they work in the leisure

industry. And he said we have to take a

common sense approach to those people

because if you do take those people then

it's creating a vacuum where these jobs

could get filled by folks that are

essentially criminals or other things.

So I believe that that's a reasonable

starting point. What I would say is

where do we go?

There are seven and a half

legal, not illegal, legal immigrants in

the United States waiting for their

adjustment of status.

Those are doctors, those are lawyers,

those are scientists, those are family

members of existing American citizens.

There's an entire body of people that I

think we have to recognize that have

been waiting in line and their first act

in America was a legal action to come in

and contribute. And every time we start

this conversation,

we go to the plight of people whose

fundamental first action was an illegal

action without understanding that there

has to be actually a more balanced

approach. So yes, I think the president

is right. common sense for the folks

that have now been here for a very long

time. But we have to prioritize the

people that started by saying we're

going to wait in line properly and then

there's people in the middle. But I

think that there needs to be a way to

give those folks a chance to get their

affairs in order, but they should be

playing by the rules. Got it. And I

think it's unfair to reward not playing

by the rules. Okay. So some middle

ground between the extreme all 20

million got to go and the

one example that I saw online Jason was

give folks a stipend and a year. Yes.

The stipen's been out there for a while

right to get their affairs in order and

then Kaizen said that right Kaizen said

that exactly and I think I think

Kaizen's clip is actually the most the

most rational for the middle chunk.

But I would really focus on these legal

folks and say what are we doing about

those folks whose first action was to

raise their hand, stand in line and say

I want to contribute by the rules that

America sets. So reward them and then

punish the illegal folks coming in.

Adjudicate everybody else or adjudicate

everybody else. Love it. Okay, Sax, I'm

going to play two clips here to level

this up and we can kind of look at this

in a multi-deade way. Here's Reagan on

immigration and then followed by

Clinton. It is bold men and women

yearning for freedom and opportunity who

leave their homelands and come to a new

country to start their lives over. They

believe in the American dream. And over

and over they make it come true for

themselves, for their children, and for

others. But their greatest contribution

is more than economic because they

understand in a special way how glorious

it is to be an American. They renew our

pride and gratitude in the United States

of America, the greatest, freest nation

in the world, the last best hope of man

on earth. All Americans, not only in the

states most heavily affected, but in

every place in this country, are rightly

disturbed by the large numbers of

illegal aliens entering our country.

That's why our administration has moved

aggressively to secure our borders more

by hiring a record number of new border

guards by deporting twice as many

criminal aliens as ever before. We are a

nation of immigrants, but we are also a

nation of laws. It is wrong and

ultimately self-defeating for a nation

of immigrants to permit the kind of

abuse of our immigration laws we have

seen in recent years, and we must do

more to stop it. Okay, Sachs, my

question for you is on a party basis,

this seems to have flipped. We talked

about this before on the program,

Republicans wanted immigration, NAFTA,

legal reg uh even maybe an open border

where workers could go freely back and

forth from Mexico, kind of like the EU.

And uh Clinton

wanted to deport folks so that Americans

get could have more jobs and that wages

would go up. Now, it seems to have

flipped. Obviously, you're inside the

administration. Disclaimer, disclaimer,

whatever you however you want to

disclaim this. What's in the best

interest of all Americans going forward?

Because we have an interesting wrinkle

here which I'm sure you've been thinking

about as the AI ZAR which is jobs are

going away in a lot of key fac.

So you have to contend with what the

American people want and AI and job

destruction or displacement that could

be caused by it. So what are your

thoughts generally and and I obviously

you work in the administration so I want

to give you that chance to explain

personal versus administration position.

Well my reaction is that you're doing

everything possible to avoid the fact

that LA is on fire right now and law

enforcement is being assaulted by riers

who look like an invading army. They're

rioting under a foreign flag. Yeah.

You're showing clips of Reagan and

Clinton. What the hell does this have to

do with the fact that there are riots in

LA right now?

Oh, I was trying to This is the issue at

hand. Oh, I was trying to level up the

conversation to talk about the big

picture of immigration, but if we want

to get down changing the conversation, I

think the No, I I'm I'm trying to

expand. But Hold on, hold on, hold on.

If you're going to accuse me personally

of like having a scale here, I'm happy

to discuss law enforcement January 6th

or this one. I believe you should not

beat up cops. I come from a family of

cops. You know that we've been friends

for over 20 years. My family is cop. My

family is firefighter. We don't approve

of throwing moral tough cocktails at

cops. Period. Full stop. I am insulted

if you even insinuate that. I didn't

insinuate that, but we have not

discussed the issue at hand, which is

you can feel free to go is burning right

now. By the way, if you don't want to

get deported, try not rioting under a

foreign flag. I mean, it's just a stupid

way to advocate for your position if

that's what it is. But that's that's the

topic of the week right now. I don't

know why you're trying to uplevel this

and talk about what Reagan thought 40

years ago. It's just not relevant to

what's happening in the news today. Now,

you asked what is the quote unquote

American position if there is one. I can

give you some polling on that. So, first

of all, voters approve of the ICE raids

in Los Angeles by 55 to 37. That's plus

18. Voters support the administration's

effort to deport illegal immigrants by

5837. That's plus 21. They approve of

Trump deploying the National Guard by 20

points, 5939.

Only 36% say the administration's gone

too far, while 55% say it's about right

or too little. So at plus 19. And even

the liberal uh Quinnipiac poll found

that Democrats approved numbers are at a

new all-time low of minus 49, whereas

Trump is now up to plus six in Morning

Consult and plus eight in Rasmusen. So,

I think the American people approve of

what the administration is doing here.

And just to fact check, one thing you

said in the introduction, you mentioned

this fashion wholesaler that along with

Home Depot, you made it sound like these

raids were just happening willy-nilly,

like there's some big roundup where they

were just busting into places and seeing

who's illegal, checking people's papers.

That's not what happened. This fashion

wholesaler is a moneyaundering operation

for the Mexican cartels. This is

according to Tom Hman. and many

employees there are involved in very

serious crimes, drug gang and violence,

murder, child rape, and there were

warrants for their arrest. So, the way

that this whole thing started is ICE was

serving criminal warrants

that state and local authorities have no

right to resist. That's how this

started. It wasn't random roundups.

Okay. Okay. I was just there's reporting

that Steven Miller specifically said

just he was disappointed with the number

of people being round up and deported

and he said just go to a farm just go to

Home Depot. So I mean that's the

reporting. Okay. Well, I have not been

able to confirm that reporting. I don't

I personally don't believe it. I think

that what Tom Holman said is that they

were serving criminal warrants. That's

how this started. Okay. Now, I think

that part of the reason why the

Democrats are so unpopular here is

they're basically perceived as excusing

the lawlessness by saying that it's only

happening because the Trump

administration's daring to enforce the

law. And so once again, they're siding

with lutters, arsonists, and violent

criminals just like in 2020. And who's

who's siding? This is Democrats. Okay?

Because the Democrats, they said no

violence. So that was many times Gavin

Newsen said no violence. Karen Bass said

no violence. They they've been tweeting.

They also Okay, great. They also are

saying that this is all Trump's fault

that Trump started this. Bassid Newsome

said that the National Guard wasn't

needed because LAPD had everything under

control. But LAPD was at first told to

stay out of the protests and when the

violence erupted and that forced him to

step in, they were according to their

own chief of police, Jim McDonald,

quickly overwhelmed. So this is

McDonald. He said, quote, "We are

overwhelmed. Tonight we had individuals

out there shooting commercial grade

fireworks at our officers that can kill

you. They'll take backpacks filled with

cinder blocks and hammers, break the

blocks, and pass the piece around to

throw officers and cars, even at other

people. So according to their own chief

of police, they needed the help from the

National Guard. So that's the real issue

here is that Bass and Nuome had this

policy of of doing nothing and then

engaging in denialism, pretending like

there wasn't a problem, and then when

the problem got too big to ignore, they

pretend like it's Trump's fault for

causing it. Tucker, what's your thoughts

on should the Trump administration have

had such a show of force? If the reports

are true that they're randomly going,

you know, to a Home Depot, if that is

true, is that the right approach right

now or is it, you know, a little too

provocative and they should do this more

strategically in your personal opinion?

Uh, well, considering that we have

American troops in over a 100 bases

around the world in countries most

Americans can't identify, it's a little

weird to be shocked when on that rare

occasion they're used to keep the second

biggest city in the country from burning

down. It seems like a the point of

having a military is to keep foreigners

from burning your cities. And these are

foreigners as David said. They're

foreign nationals committing crimes

beneath a foreign flag. So that if there

was ever a time to use the US military,

it's then. And as noted earlier, you

can't allow the states to be flagrantly

out of compliance with federal

immigration law. And I have to say the

core question for me as an American is a

really a fairness question. So the idea

that, you know, people are breaking the

law, but it's cool because they're doing

essential services, like, well, you

know, I pay a lot in taxes. Maybe I pay

80% and that feels like enough to me.

And hey, man, do you really have a right

to collect the the last 20%. I mean,

isn't 80% enough? Like, back off. I

don't have the right to say that as an

American citizen to an IRS agent, I wind

up in jail if I do that or if I break

any law, by the way. It's a rule of law,

critically important. No, but not only

that, it's a double standard. And and I

live in a place where a lot of the

population subsists on food banks and

where there very few jobs and it really

is one of those places that NAFTA

destroyed whose economy NAFTA destroyed

and to see in the place where I live

immigrants get preference on housing on

jobs which is actually true and I know

that liberals watching be like that's

not really true. It is true actually and

I and I wonder cuz the real number is

not 20 million it's closer to 50

million. I think that's true uh illegals

in the United States. Clearly, they

can't all be deported by ICE. But I also

think if you have a system that hands

out

meaningful grants in effect, cell

phones, travel vouchers, housing

vouchers, free education, food stamps to

people who are here legally or who are

here legally as refugees, you are going

to draw the world's poor. And I think

it's fair to ask, do we want that? How

do we benefit from that? And are we

giving more to foreigners than we're

giving to our own citizens? And the

answer is yes. And like how dare you at

a certain point like you get a

revolution if you keep doing that.

That's too much. It's too offensive. Got

it. So I think we all agree no violence

on cops, shut the southern border and

giving crazy amount. Let me just think

the National Guard should never brought

in. You let me ask questions, don't you?

Do you think the National Guard should

be brought in? Yes or no? If the local

police can't handle what's going on, of

course they should be brought in. Sure.

I believe that during

are questioning that decision. You ask

me the question. I believe they should

have been brought in for January 6th for

BLM or for the LA riots if the local

police can't contain them. 100% I

believe the National Guard should have

been brought in for January 6th when

they were beating cops. I believe they

should be brought in now if cops are

being beaten. And I believe they should

have been brought in during BLM when

cops were being beaten. I am pro cop. I

come from a family of cops. So you can

ask me the questions. So Newsome and

Bass are out of line when they say that

the National Guard should not have been

brought in. I think well number one I

think they should call the National

Guard if they can't control it. I'm not

But that's their criticism of Trump is

that he called in the National Guard.

You agree that that was necessary. It's

obviously necessary. Just look at the

TV. The still on fire. The cops are

completely overwhelmed.

By the way, I find it comical that Well,

let me stretch this one point then you

can speak. Yeah. I find it comical that

permission the Massachusetts governor

called up the National Guard when Dantis

sent remember when he sent the 50

migrants over to Arthur's Vineyard. Yes.

And they all freaked out and they

literally called the National Guard in

because 50 migrants all of a sudden had

been flown into Marthur's Vineyard. They

did. Yeah. Okay. But was that you can

have you can have them or because there

was riots? Well, that was when Dantis

was making a point about but that was to

process them. They weren't rioting on

Martha's Vineyard. These were just

nonetheless the National Guard was

brought in and you know you can have

thousands of people though riding in LA

but somehow the National Guard shouldn't

be brought in. I we we're in agreement.

So you can try to force me to disagree

with you but I'm in agreement. Anytime

the cops are overwhelmed I think the

National Guard should be brought in.

Period. Full stop. So we're in agreement

on that. What I'm trying to get to is

Tucker, if you believe there's 50

million people, let's say the numbers 30

million. We we split the difference

between the two, 35 million, whatever it

is. My question for you, how many should

be deported by ICE at $20,000 a person,

which is the estimate that, you know,

both sides seem to agree is what it's

going to cost. Should we deport a

million? Should we deport 10 million?

And then how, Tucker Carlson, would you

deport them?

Well, I think the goal has to be

full compliance with the law for

everybody within our borders, citizen or

foreignb born, illegal, refugee, green

card holder. If you're in the United

States, you obey our laws. And if you

don't, we make a good faith effort to

enforce them despite how powerful the

political block may be. 50 million. So,

so of well, of by definition, or else

why wouldn't I apply that same standard

to my taxes, right? So, but how do you

do it? Citizenship. Yeah. Let's get into

that. Yeah. Right. So, well, that's a

hostage situation. It's like we've got

50 million here already. We've lied

about the number for 30 years now. Wow.

It's 50 million or 35 million. We need

them. everyone gets a path to

citizenship,

you know, that's a kind of crime

actually. But the first step, and the

phrase has been devalued, but

self-deportation,

if you have a system where people come

to the United States to make their own

way and take advantage of the freedoms

offered in the economy, uh, they're

allowed to participate in the economy,

then I think you could have a system

where people really admire immigrants in

the way that they did when I was growing

up and that I I still do in some ways. I

mean, some of my favorite people are

immigrants and they all tell the same

story. Came here with nothing, built

this great life, but you make everybody

cynical and you sort of destroy the idea

of the virtue of immigration when you

hand people stuff and give them

preference when they arrive. And we

don't talk enough about what that

actually looks like. We spend a lot more

than 20 grand a person right now in

subsidies to people who aren't even

allowed to be here. They pay into social

security too, right? to the tune of 100

million years. Oh, okay. Right. No, no,

that's just what was reported by our

government. If we want to get conspiracy

corner, that's I think those are fake. I

think those are fake numbers. Look, does

anybody really believe that 50 million

illegals is a net benefit to the US

economy? Are you serious? Have you been

to our cities? No, of course not. It's

not. I actually probably a large number

of them are a net benefit because

they're working in jobs that Americans

don't want to take and we're at 4%

unemployment. So, who's going to take

all those jobs if they get deported?

Chucker, aren't But weren't you just

saying that we're on the cusp of a of a

labor revolution where some you 20% of

American jobs are going away in 2 years?

It could be. Yeah. So that's the that's

the nuance in this discussion is 5 years

ago we might be dealing. It's like a

brick wall we're about to hit at high

speed. And I don't understand having

accustomed an entire generation of tens

of millions of immigrants to government

handouts what the social fabric is going

to look like when that stops. Yeah. Can

I say something cuz I I Tucker is saying

something really important which I agree

with. What should immigration be in a

highly developed nation like the United

States and my perspective is you have to

come and say well what is the goal? I

think the goal should be to maintain

supremacy. The United States is the most

vibrant economy in the world. It's the

most important military power in the

world. It's the most technically

advanced entity in the world. If we do

not focus on maintaining our supremacy,

I don't think any American wants to go

through the process of going from first

to not first.

And if you look back in history at all

of the other countries that have had to

go through that transition, that is

where revolutions and chaos happen. So

we should avoid that. So where does

immigration play a role? It needs to

play a role first and foremost in

technical, military, and economic

supremacy. The problem, as Tucker says,

is when you have five or six times the

number of illegal immigrants as legal

immigrants, all of a sudden the idea of

using immigration as a cream skimming

technique to reinforce the most capable

people in the world to come here goes

away because you can't have that

conversation. We have people languishing

for 10, 15, 20 years on visas, okay?

Their kids age out. They all go back to

India and other places.

Why? Because we can't focus on that

conversation, Jason, because we're

focused on how do we give amnesty to

folks whose initial action was breaking

the law. Absolutely correct. And this is

where the whole immigration conversation

devolves. We are missing the bigger

picture and you need to deal one second.

You need to deal with the illegal

immigration thing in an extremely

foundational way where you can defend

the decision. You started illegally

and you have to now go and conform to

the law which is where I'm trying to

steer this discussion. Number one, we

all agree on closing the border. It

seems like there's a a breaking

consensus here. Tucker wants to

eventually deport everybody. You want to

do something in the middle like Trump.

Sax, I'm not sure what your personal

position is or if you want to give it.

Do you feel we should try to have a path

to deport as many of these 20 30 million

as possible or do you believe we should

have a path towards uh citizenship for

them? What is your personal belief or do

you want to not get Well, I I remember

when you asked that question to now vice

president JD Vance at all summit and he

said that you basically address that

problem the same way that you eat a

sandwich, which is one bite at a time.

So that makes sense to me. If there's 20

million illegals, you start with the top

million who are violent criminals and

gang members and you deport those. And

that is what ICE was doing. They were

serving criminal warrants. And then

after you successfully do that, then you

see where you're at and you can address

the next bite of the sandwich. That

makes sense to me. Now, look, I I think

that we're not really addressing a

really core part of the issue here,

which is for a couple of decades now,

conservatives were demonized, and Tucker

in particular, I think you were

demonized for warning about the policies

that have created the mess that everyone

can see on TV right now. And that mess

is we have a large unassimilated

population of military-aged males who

are basically rioting right now under a

foreign flag as if they were foreign

invaders. We basically have allowed a

separatist movement into the United

States. That's what it looks like to me.

And I remember when Tucker was warning

about the the policies that might create

this on his show for years, you know,

virtually alone, probably alone on Fox

News, you know, you were called a

racist. this was great replacement

theory, blah blah blah. How can everyone

not look at what's happening on TV right

now and say Tucker was right? You know,

that was really dumb. And look, I say

this as someone from a family. I'm I'm

one of the people that Ronald Reagan was

talking about. You know, my family and I

came over here. We're immigrants, but we

came over here to assimilate. You know,

we believe in the melting pot. Be

careful. You might get canceled for

bringing up the melting pot. The melting

pot's good. I mean, I think that was the

classic American model. Melting is

totally good. You speak. I'm just saying

you could cancel. That's what you're

supposed to do. Like why do why would

anybody I came here because I wanted to

be American and everything that American

meant. If I was bigger, I would have

played football. You know, like there's

all these things that I would have done

to assimilate more and more. I believe

in the culture of the United States.

That's why people should come, right? So

we came here, we assimilated, you know,

high skill immigrants, didn't have a

lot, but had good education and willing

to assimilate. That's very different

than what you're seeing on TV right now.

And again, if the people on TV just

wanted to protest immigration policy in

the way that you're talking about, I

mean, you're describing it in this like

very nice gental way, they would be

peacefully protesting under an American

flag, saying, "We want to be here. We're

willing to contribute." I think the

issue was that's not what's happening. I

I you can see that, right? I mean, they

they look like foreign invaders. I would

say, by the way, this is like the

dumbest PR that, you know, if this

debate is really about immigration, this

is like the dumbest way for them to

present their side of the argument.

Yeah. Because who wants to keep in this

country a large unimilated population

that is proud to march, not just march,

but actually protest and riot and burn

and assault under the flag of another

nation. I would say dollars to donation.

Majority of the people who are doing the

looting and rioting are not actually

immigrants because they have the ability

to be deported. The people who are doing

that are the bad actors that we saw

during BLN. The bad actors that we saw,

you know, in LA when the Lakers win.

I've lived here for a decade and I am

here right now. I can tell you it's

contained. And those 80 90% of those

people are not the immigrants. The

immigrants are hiding right now for fear

of being deported. But let's sort of

talk about do the path. Well, where do

you where do you guys want to go with it

here? I mean, uh, I can give you my

opinion if you want. Well, Tucker, I

mean, like I I don't know. I mean, I

don't want to speak for you, but I mean,

I I I I do think that like Tucker should

feel vindicated on this issue for

speaking about so many years. You feel

vindicated?

I mean, I never doubted it. I grew up I

was born in California in 1969 and I my

family got there in 1850. I have some

sense of what the state was like um

certainly through my childhood and it

was an it was idyllic and it's it's it's

not you know the rich areas are great is

great is still great I think I mean

there are great Mount Shast is great

lots of great places in California um

but fundamentally the state is a slum

Latin American country and immigration

did that and I say that as someone who

is pretty pro-immigrant actually my best

friend's an immigrant I mean I I've

always admired liked immigrants um I'm

hardly anti-immigrant or anti

immigration, but the way we did it

destroyed the state. Immigration is what

made California into a slum, and there's

kind of no way around that. And so,

that's not an argument against all

immigration. I I'm not making that

argument. I don't feel that way. But,

uh, it's an argument against what we did

in California. And rather than learn

from that, we're doing it in every other

state. And I don't know why. And I

think, you know, if the other side had a

reasonable argument, they would profer

it. But instead, they call you names and

try to turn you into some kind of

thought criminal or whatever. I don't

care obviously. Um but it's a it's a

sort of measure of how um little they

have to say in response. They're not

actually trying to make the country

better. That's kind of the main thing. I

have always thought immigrants are great

because they did it make the country

better, right? I mean I I think that's

demonstrable. But the people pushing our

current policies don't have that as a

goal. This is a kind of punishment for

something. And a lot of it's ethnic

actually. It's a it's a kind of attack

on the people who were born here. I

don't know where that hostility comes

from. You can feel it though. And I

think it's foolish to deny it. That is a

motive. They're trying to hurt the

people who live here. And I again, I

live in a place currently where I see

that happening. Um, and it drives me

totally bonkers. And the last thing I'll

say is if you think the way we once did

immigration was good and a lot of

immigrants are awesome people and I do

think that this is discrediting all

immigration 100% and it's turning people

into pretty radical immigration

restrictionists are like look I don't

want any more immigrants. Yeah, you know

that's inevitable. Um but it's sad to

see it.

By the way what you're saying is is the

most true for immigrants. Legal

immigrants look at illegal immigration

even more negatively than nativeborn

Americans, which makes sense, right? I

mean, they waited in line and other

people didn't. You would be really upset

if somebody cut the line. Jason, what do

you think? Obviously, there's a lot of

emotion around this issue. I think

numbers help and I always look to see

what is the consensus amongst the group

here and amongst, you know, Americans.

Everybody wants the border closed. Trump

won on that. So, okay, we all agree the

border should be closed. I think 80 90%

consensus in that 80 90% of Americans

think we should deport violent

criminals. Okay, we got consensus there.

So then what's left is what do we do

with highskilled recruiting? I like to

use the word recruiting and we had that

discussion with President Trump here. He

promised to put a green card on every

degree. I agree with him on that. I

think we should be recruiting at least a

million or two million amazing people

per year. 1 to two million amazing

people. We should match that to what the

needs of the country are. If we need

energy, if we need doctors, we should

match that. Where we probably disagree

is I think the Democrats and the

Republicans share equally in this issue

that was created that Tucker pointed

out. Yes, there are 40, 30, 50, who

knows what the exact number is. That's

part of the problem. Here's a chart we

made. This just shows you under each of

the last, you know, uh 50 almost 50

years of of presidents, how many people

net uh immigrated to the country. And as

you can see, you know, it's been pretty

consistent.

You know, around 3 million per and uh

Clinton and Bush had a ton of

immigration. Both uh Bushes were paid

for a lot of their donations came from

corporates who wanted free migration.

America created this. Hold on. Let me

finish my thought. Outlier here, Jason,

though. Oh, well, yeah. Biden is the

huge outlier. We We all agree on that.

Biden let it go yolo. And I understand

people have a lot of resentment for that

and rightfully so. And if you bring in

10 million people, you're going to let

get a lot of bad guys. But you put this

all together. My belief is that this is

a country of immigrants and that this

country does great when hardworking

immigrants assimilate. I think we should

take this raw firepower of these

incredible immigrants who have been here

for decades. If you've been here for 10

or 20 decades, pay a fine, pay some

extra taxes, and we give these people a

path to citizenship. And we recruit the

top one to two million people. That's my

belief. You do that before or after the

people that have been waiting in line

get a fair shake. I think I would start

before or after. I think you have to do

it before because we created this. And I

I I know that that's not something that

people want to take ownership of, but

America created the situation. Bush

created it. created Clinton America.

Yes. The country that we live in, our

government allowed millions of people

here and the Republicans did this

specifically in order to get cheap

labor. Let me let me ask for what we did

with these people. Let's just say that

you're an international Let's just say

you're an international mathematics

olympiad winner. You get recruited to

come to the United States on a student

visa. You crush it. Let's say you go to

MIT and then you go and do a PhD at

Caltech and then you get recruited on an

OPT visa by Google and you're just

crushing. Awesome. And and you're saying

that that person Oh, no. Sorry. That's a

more subtle question. That person we

should recruit. As I said very clearly,

recruit 1 to 2 million. They're

currently waiting in line, Jason. Yes.

So, let's just So, I'm saying yes, let

them in. And yes, a path to who do you

prioritize? You have one. You can do

both at the same time. No, no, you

don't. Can of course you can we could

have one group recruiting a million to 2

million highly skilled labor highly

skilled individuals of the type you're

describing while having another group.

We can do two things at the same time.

Chimoth absolutely you can you're you're

giving a false question here. Then we

take the person who's been here for 20

years as a dishwasher as a nanny who has

been an amazing citizen who has been

paying into social security. give them a

path, a compassionate path. And we as

America and Americans should take

ownership of the fact that we allowed

this and the people who allowed it were

Republicans and Democrats. We allowed

these people to come in to work in our

restaurants and fields, which is what

Trump said today. Trump is in agreement

with me. That's not what he said. He

said something. He said he wants to not

have those people leave. It's just

amazing to me that on this podcast

during the Biden years, you were echoing

this party line that the videos of, you

know, mass migration, caravans streaming

across the border, going through the

holes in the wall. You said those were

videos cherrypicked by Fox News. You

told the party line that there was no

problem. Now all of a sudden, now all of

a sudden you're saying it was a

bipartisan problem. No, no, fact check.

I said we are we don't know because we

don't have the the metrics and we don't

have a good system, which we all agree

on. There's no good system. Anybody who

went down to the border was saying that

it was wide open, right? And as we got

that data, I said this data on the

ground shows we should shut the border.

That's always suddenly became very

empirical about the issue. I I've always

been empirical about it and I've also

been compassionate. This whole like both

sides are to blame thing kind of ignores

the fact that you had the Trump

revolution in 2016. There is some truth

to the idea that both parties neglected

the problem. If you go back far enough,

like you know, Tucker will remember this

when Bob Bartley was the editor of the

Wall Street Journal op-ed page, they

actually supported a constitutional

amendment in favor of open borders. I

mean, they really believed in this whole

idea of pull free trade, open borders,

free flow of capital and labor. Okay,

but that was a long time ago. And you

know, with the rise of Trump in 2015,

2016, it became a different party. Trump

got elected on building a wall. Yeah.

And what happened? The Democrats fought

him tooth and nail. They tied him up in

litigation. He was able to build

hundreds of miles of wall, but there

were uncompleted parts of it. And when

Biden came into office, there were large

pieces of the wall that were still on

the ground just waiting to be erected.

And Biden sold them off as scrap metal

for two cents on the dollar. Do you

remember this? And then Biden and the

Democrats proceed in favor. Hold on a

second.

Please don't frame it as I'm against

that. Okay, just forget about you. Just

you you said Democrats and Republicans

are a blamed for this. Not in the last

not in the last eight years. No. Oh

yeah. No. No. Biden Trump wanted a wall.

Yeah. Biden. Yeah. Opened up the border

and Democrats supported him in that and

they thwarted every Republican attempt

to close the border for three years.

Hold on a second. For three years they

gas lit and pretended it wasn't a

problem. Then when it became undeniable,

they claimed that Biden didn't have the

executive authority. So they would need

a new act of Congress. That was also

total nonsense. As Trump said in the

State of the Union, you didn't need a

new law. You just need a new president.

Look, if you want to go back 20 or 30

years, you can blame both parties. If

you want to talk about the last 8 years,

there's only one party to blame. One

party, the Democrats. And that is why

you look at the polling right now,

Democrats, their party all-time low. It

is, let's get the exact number, -49. 21%

approve of Democrats, 70% disapprove

because they know that Democrats cause

this problem and Democrats are the ones

denying. They're the ones basically

making excuses for the disorder and the

chaos right now. The only Democrat The

only Democrat who's actually talking

sense right now is the one with a head

injury, ironically, Federman. He's a

lone voice here. I want to pull up this

quote. Don't make

dude that's No, I mean it's amazing. No,

I mean it's it's kind of sad. But look,

I'm agreeing with Federman. Federman

says caveat that he hit his head.

I don't know what it is about Democrats.

I don't know what it is about Democrats.

It takes a head It takes a head injury

for them to talk sense. Okay. It's like

a Bullworth thing. Anyway, Federman

said, "My party loses the moral high

ground when we refuse to condemn setting

cars on fire, destroying buildings, and

assaulting law enforcement." He's

talking about January 6th. I unapolog

unapologetically stand for free speech,

peaceful demonstrations, immigration,

but this is not that. This is anarchy

and true chaos. So, kudos to Federman,

but he's the only Democrat out there.

He's a low voice condemning the

violence. And Tucker's our guest. We're

going to give Tucker the last word on

this topic before we go on to the next

one. And you are 100% correct. Biden 10

million net im immigrants and Trump 3

million which sounds like a lot but is

actually the lowest in like 10

administrations. The lowest since

Reagan. Tucker, you're our guest. Wrap

us up here. What should we think?

I think that we should measure the

health of a country at least in part by

the condition of its cities, including

the cleanliness of its cities.

And by that measure, our country is

collapsing. Our our cities are a

disaster. and the the richest part of

the richest cities are fine and the rest

of them are just absolutely awful. And

so I think that has got to be just job

one. If you want to renew the United

States, you have to make sure its

population centers are clean, safe,

orderly, but especially clean. There's

something really important and I know

that the left just instinctively

discounts that, but cleanliness is next

to godliness. And your city is a

reflection of your self-respect, how you

feel about your nation, your patriotism.

And if you allow it to become like Paris

or New York, covered in graffiti and

filth and random people from other

countries selling fruit on the street

and begging and having sex in ATM

vestibules and just like the whole

Midtown Manhattan, Central Paris

experience, like that's a sign your

civilization is going under. I think

it's really really important and I do

think you know that decay is not

entirely caused by mass immigration but

mass immigration has made it much worse

and I just know that from walking around

cuz I like to walk around cities. I

think it's a national emergency and the

riots are just the most fluid expression

of that. You know a burning car is

something you can't ignore but we do

ignore the condition of 6th Avenue at

49th Street. like how can a self or the

condition of Penn Station or you know of

our airports like how can we allow that?

Um so if I were in charge I mean I would

make you go to Dubai or Doha or Moscow

or some place that has a sense of itself

when we got soba in Tokyo remember two

years ago and we were talking about this

exact issue it just well but it's true I

mean Tokyo is the most radicalizing

experience for an American. Everyone who

goes there is like I can't even deal

with this. I'm so angry that we've put

up with what we're putting up with. I

had to talk it in. You did. Let's not

overthink it, I guess, is what I'm

saying. It's not even about the

Constitution. It's about litter. Yeah.

Okay. Tucker gets the last word on that.

And now David Saxs gets to take his

incredible victory lap. Economic data

has been objectively pretty great the

last two weeks. Tariff revenue spiked 23

billion in May, 2x from February. So

there we go. we see the impact of a

little bit of extra income. Inflation

continues to come down and uh what are

we at? 2.4%.

Across the board, there's some pluses

and minuses in there. We'll get into it

later. GDP. Okay, this is the leading

GDP prediction model from the Atlanta

Fed. Could be as high as 3.8%. Again,

this is a prediction for Q2. Q2 is

obviously not over, but this would be a

pretty big jump over Q1. Despite all

this positive data, the deficit remains

the sticky issue. Some of our friends

might have some issue with this and been

vocal about it. In May, the US had 371

billion in revenue with 687 billion in

spend. Not good. Big high burn rate,

$316 billion deficit. We paid $90

billion in May in interest on the debt

almost up to a hundred billion a month.

And uh there's a nice key chart uh which

we all like. We could double click on

that if anybody finds something

interesting in here. Here's your deficit

tracker. What I'll highlight here for

you is those first two lines 2020 and

2021. You got to kind of give a mulligan

there for the COVID years and uh purple

2025. We are a bit ahead of the last

couple of years. We're 13 our spending

now and you know obviously the debt

service is a big part of this. 13% above

2024, 20% above 2023 and 65% above 2022.

The balance sheet of the United States

is really bad right now. Sachs, I'm

going to start with you. This obviously

has been an emotional issue and uh oh,

apology. I just noticed forgot to hit

publish on last week's episode, but

let's let that go. Uh it won't happen

again. Sachs, what are your thoughts

here? Well, I mean, you'll recall that

back in early April, Jim Kramer

predicted we'd see a Black Monday in

response to Trump's tariffs. And that's

all the proof that we should have known

that we were about to get a bunch of

good economic news. Uh and it wasn't it

wasn't just Jim Kramer. I mean, Larry

Summers was on our pod with that big

debate that we did and he was predicting

doom. And what we're seeing now is good

economic news is breaking out all over.

So Q2 GDP on track for 3.8% according to

the Atlanta Fed. The May jobs report was

above expected plus 139,000. CPI, you

know, inflation down to 2.4%.

So growth is back. Inflation is low. And

what you saw over the last few months

was the elites in both parties, I'll

give you that, have they were

scaremongering on tariffs and predicting

doom and they've been proven to be out

of touch with popular sentiment and

reality. I mean, you don't want to spike

the football too soon, but things look

really good right now. Yeah. And I mean,

in fairness, when the Trump shock and

awe with the tariffs, he came out pretty

strongly, Zach, you will admit, and the

market did tank massively for about 30

days. Tucker, what's your take on the

economy today? This debt, does it

concern you? And I'm wondering what

because there seems to be a little bit

of a rift inside of the Republican party

on the BBB, not bill back better, but

the big beautiful bill. What's Tucker

Carlson's take? I'm curious, on out of

control spending, the deficit, and this

bill in relation to that. Well, I mean,

I have the world's most predictable

views. I believe in physics. So, you

know, an unpayable debt tanks your

country at a certain point. That was

pre-existing. It's accelerated as you

noted. I I don't know a single person

who's got a any kind of plan to fix it.

I think we're just going to ride it into

whatever the point of oblivion is. But I

would just say on tariffs, you know, my

you've got the reverse Kramer. David was

saying that's his measure of economic

forecasting. For me, it's the Wall

Street Journal editorial page. Whatever

they're for is poison. um generally

speaking and anything that drives them

insane is a virtue. And I just can't

imagine a policy more perfectly designed

to just make them like explode than uh

Trump's tariff announcement. And I and I

have to say, I mean, I've been kind of

pretty conventional Republican my entire

life. I remember when I decided the Iraq

war was a bad idea. That felt like an

outlaw, you know, idea.

What What led you to got Uh well, I went

to Iraq um in December of 2003 to see

where a friend of mine had been killed

and um so I was there right after the

invasion and I just immediately

recognized this is not we're we're not a

good colonial power because we won't

admit that we are. We won't admit that

we have an empire, therefore we can't

admin administer it in a rational way.

Um just the obvious stuff. But anyway,

the point is the last remaining kind of

unexamined orthodoxy in my head was free

trade. And I happened to be just by

chance at the White House the day of

that announcement. And I remember

thinking, man, if this works, what a

caper, you know? I mean, I don't know.

Worst case scenario in your mind of, you

know, this tariff negotiation.

Obviously, there have been multiple

rounds of it. I'm not gonna use the term

taco, but it does seem like we've

shifted from shock and awe to maybe like

kind of bore. It's kind of boring like

and and that does seem to be Trump's

approach, right? He in negotiations big

bang and then fall back to a reasonable

position. So, I think we're in the

reasonable position phase. What does

success willing? I I hope I pray that's

what we're seeing on Iran right now. Um

but you're absolutely right. I mean,

that's sort of the nature of

negotiations, of course. Um, and there

is nothing in writing with China, so far

as I know, and it'll be reassuring, I

think, when there is. Um, but in

general, we haven't seen what Jim Kramer

and Larry Summers predicted, and that

itself is amazing. It's amazing and it

it causes you someone like me is sort of

on the sidelines of the economic debate,

but watching carefully, it does make you

sort of wonder like what other absurd

midcentury orthodoxies about economics

have I internalized that just aren't

true, right? Cuz that was the biggest of

all. Tariffs are, you know, they caused

the Great Depression. We know that. And

and so what if like you can have a kind

of mixed approach with some trade

barriers that are tailored to your

benefit and that sort of works in a

longitudinal way. If that's true, holy

smokes. And it looks like it might be

true. So it's been true for the other

side, right? They have been doing that.

So if it's for China and South Korea and

Australia, why wouldn't it be true for

us? It seems like we're the sucker at

the poker table. Well, I think you're

right. I guess what I'm all I'm saying

I'm making a pretty pedestrian point,

but I can't get past it, which is this

is so far from what the Republican party

stood for 10 years ago, which was

neoconservative foreign policy, free

trade, um open borders, as as you noted,

maybe a little more than 10 years ago,

but 15 years ago. Um this is this is the

mirror image of it, and it just blows my

mind. And it's it's such a better

version. It's such a more reality based,

flexible, thoughtful uh version than we

had before. And I'm just really and most

Republicans in the Senate are not even

aware this is happening. They are the

most recalcitrant people in the world.

Also the dumbest. So most of them, you

know, don't accept any of this. But just

as an observer, I'm thrilled to see it.

All right, Chimath. Uh actually, can I

get Can I um Oh, yeah, sure. No, no, no.

I mean, I know you like to go right

after Tucker. It's very engaging. Oh no.

You got me thinking about these. Um,

this is his dream. When you're on, he

cannot in the group chat. He's so

excited. Tucker, when you're coming on,

it's 48 hours of Sax being like, "When

does when is the pod coming? Is Tucker

really coming?" That's how I feel about

David Saxs. Trust me, if you if you had

a camera at my dinner table, you would

hear something similar. Oh, boy. Here we

go. Go ahead, Sax. It's uh it's great to

have someone to the right of me on the

podcast for once. You know, it's not an

easy task. I we invited Alex Jones and

Steve Aman to have him respond.

Tucker got me thinking about these

unexamined orthodoxies. And that is a

good way of putting it. I mean, you

know, cuz I studied economics in college

and you know, I learned that the Smoot

Holly tariff caused the Great

Depression. And it's like in hindsight,

you're like, how can that even be true?

Like a tariff is basically a tax rate on

foreign goods. And you're saying that,

you know, increasing taxes on foreign

goods all of a sudden cause a great

depression. It doesn't make any sense

when you actually like just think about

it. Now, what caused Great Depression?

Well, I would say when thousands of

banks went under and there's no FDIC and

everyone just got wiped out by that and

it's a systemic risk. So, like one bank

failure leads to the next one. That's so

obviously what caused the Great

Depression is nobody had any money left.

They all got wiped out when all the

banks went under at the same time.

Right. Well, and then what how do we

take a something that happened in the

20s and 30s and apply it to a much more

dynamic world like today? It doesn't

make much sense. Well, I think what

happened is we had all these post-war

meaning postw World War II

understandings that kind of got

hardwired into the consciousness of our

intellectuals. And if you think about

the the era right after World War II,

the US was like the last great power

standing. Um it was us and the Soviet

Union, but they kind of were had a

different system. they were not part of

the um let's say the the free world.

They're part of this communist block. So

with in in terms of the the quote

unquote free world, we were the only

country that was relatively undamaged

and we had this giant manufacturing

base. And so yeah, obviously that the

the fewer trade barriers existed across

the world, the better it was for the

United States because it was our goods

and our factories that basically were

able to sell all over the world. And so

we proceeded to define a world order in

which we just kicked down every single

barrier to free trade because that's

what benefited us. Now, I don't know

that that means that that situation

always benefits us in all times and all

places. I mean, the big issue we have

right now is that you've got a rising

China and they have become the scale

producer in the world for all sorts of

goods. They now have this giant

industrial base that we seem to have

exported to them. And again, it was and

we exported a lot of that because of

this um free trade ideology that got so

entrenched in our thinking that we just

stopped thinking about under what

circumstances this might not continue to

be good for us. And so we've ended up

becoming dependent on them for all sorts

of goods that we now realize are highly

strategic. And we're trying to figure

out well how do we onshore these things

because it seems really dangerous now

for us to be singlethreaded on you know

on potentially adversarial power for

rare earth or you know rare earth

magnets and chips and pharmaceuticals

and all these things but you know our

intellectual class just never seems to

revisit any of its assumptions they just

kind of have these dogmas chimoth

building on Sax's sort of cottification

of truths heristics and not getting

questioned how much of it is we just

codify hey trade good you know open

borders good free trade good and how

much of it is just incentives like I

mean rich people paying off politicians

to have more free trade independent of

party seems to be what's happened over

the last 10 20 years it just made more

sense to put workers and to send jobs to

the lowest cost place to increase

profits for American companies which

let's face it although it may have

hollowed out our manufacturing and

created this weakness in the four or

five areas you point out every week that

we need to reinforce quite eloquently

the real issue is we did that because we

wanted to make money. We wanted to have

the most highly profitable companies and

we did succeed. But maybe we succeeded

too much and our companies benefited

more than the middle class. You got Josh

Holly out there saying, "Hey, we should

go to $15 minimum wage federally from

this." The wrong the wrong people won in

the early in the early 2000s. I think

that there was a war of ideas and there

was a group of people that advocated for

this reckless form of free trade and

this globalist view like every country

is going to meld into one mega monolith

country organization that'll get

governed out of New York by the United

Nations and its sleeve organizations.

And that worldview won. But it was the

wrong worldview.

And it didn't acknowledge that we have

competing philosophies, competing

priorities, competing ideals of what the

future looks like. And I think that we

need to go back and reset all of those

things. If you just take where we are,

if you can just put the Sanki diagram

back up, there's a couple things that

are really worth noting that people need

to fundamentally understand. I said a

couple weeks ago that I thought the GDP

print was going to come in hot. I think

everybody now is sort of where I am. So,

let me give you the next thing. Let me

just ask you though, why is it hot? Do

you have a thesis on why GDP spikes so

much or potentially did that's obviously

a forecast.

I don't know the puts and takes yet. And

I think when we see the print, we have I

have a way of forecasting this stuff,

which is a bunch of signals that my team

and also many macro teams all around the

world, the bond vigilantes to the hedge

fund guys, they all feed it to me. And

what I was noticing was that we were

going to come in, I said in the low 3s.

And I think, you know, if Atlanta Fed is

right, I don't think they are, but I

think it's going to be in the low to

mid-3s. is going to be meaningfully

greater than what people are expecting.

So let me just give you my next

prediction. My next prediction are two

really important things. What this Sanki

diagram looks at which is a snapshot of

the balance sheet and the health of the

United States in May misses in my

opinion two very important things that

have to change.

The first and this is a positive for the

Trump administration and the United

States economy is we are run rating 300

to400 billion dollar above forecast

in terms of our receipts meaning the

revenues that we will take in and you

get to that number by looking at the

last three months of tariffs and

forecasting forward assuming a

reasonable balance here. So, back to

Tucker's point. Yeah, we all thought

that this was like a boogeyman that you

weren't allowed to touch it and that if

you touched the stove, you were going to

get burned.

The mathematical reality is that this is

actually going to work out much better

for us than we anticipated and it's

going to be somewhere in the range of

300 to 400 billion of extra revenue per

year. That's a huge win.

So, why is that important?

That then sets up this next cataclysmic

thing that we're going to see over the

next 60 days, which is what does Jerome

Powell do?

If Jerome Powell stays politicized,

his incentive will be to keep interest

rates where they are.

If Jerome Powell looks at the conditions

on the ground, especially when you start

to see inflation stay in the low twos

and approach 2.0,

The real thing that he's going to be

under tremendous pressure to justify is

why are you not cutting?

And just to give you a sense of how

important that is, if we cut by 100

basis points, that's another $300

billion. Now, in that case, that's not

money that we get in, but it's money we

don't have to spend.

So if you add these two things together,

we are in the next 60 days going to have

to reforcast the American balance sheet

where this is or we're actually going to

be able to positively forecast an extra

600 billion. 300 billion of incremental

revenue and 300 billion of savings.

Jason, if that happens, watch out. What

does that mean? Watch out. It means that

every single risk dollar is going to run

to America. Every single one. Yum. Yum.

Forget Japan. Forget Europe. There is no

place to put your money except the

United States. So, I think that we have

to figure out

how to get Jerome Powell on the side of

America versus on the side of what could

happen

politically. Because I think that

there's probably a version in his head

that says, "My gosh, if I do this, it

helps Trump

and if I don't do it, it hurts Trump."

Practically that is true. But the

reality is the conditions on the ground

justify cutting. Okay. So you're

predicting this 300 billion two

different ways in and out 50 billion a

month. It starts cutting this deficit

pretty significantly. your claim, I just

want to be clear here, is that Powell is

playing politics, not working towards

the dual mandate, which is very clear,

controlled unemployment at the 2.0 rate

and full employment. Your belief is that

he's playing politics. Yes. I I believe

that these decisions are political. I

think that the Federal Reserve has

veered away from actually controlling

the money supply in the best long-term

interests of the United States and more

towards what benefits the short-term.

And this ties back to how I started

this. What is Powell's motivation?

Somewhere in the 2000s, Jason, we

transitioned away from having the

strategic 20-year conversation about

what's in the best interest of America.

And instead, we started to have these

uniolar globalist conversations. And the

people that got into these centers of

power, the IMF, the World Bank, the

Federal Reserve, the central banks

around the world, they all worked

towards an agenda that is now being

undone. I'll give you an example of

where this is now being undone. Just

today,

the World Bank undid a rule around being

able to fund nuclear energy. And you

would have thought, well, hold on a

second. The World Bank steps in to backs

stop all these developing countries when

they're in the middle of all this

nonsense, right? And if you think about

a country that's developing, what is the

single biggest input to that country?

Energy.

And you think for the last 40 years of

multi- trillion dollar bailouts, we

never demanded abundant clean energy in

the developing world. Of course not

because it was a political decision.

Okay, Tucker, do you believe the Fed is

playing politics here? It's kind of hard

to believe if Pal was placed by Trump

and Biden. He's there was consensus

there and his mandate is to get to 2.0

and full employment. He's kind of

trending towards that. He's made a

couple of cuts. The markets predict he

is going to make a cut. Here's poly

market for September showing 80% chance

of a cut. Let's take a look if that's

changed since the last time. Uh so in

September, no. Okay. Well, this has

changed. Uh 32. All right. So here's

your poly market fed decision in

September. No change. 53% 25 bips 43 50

bips 3.8. So you put those two together,

you're you're roughly at 47% chance of a

cut. 53% chance of no cut. So 50/50 coin

toss. Do you think the Fed is playing

politics? Do I think the Fed chairman

who who lives in who lives in Chevy

Chase is a political actor? I mean, are

you serious? What's his motivation then?

What's his endgame? Why does he not want

to cut rates or or why would he not want

to put it? Well, of course. I mean, he

lives in a world in which there is no

one who doesn't want to stick it to

Trump. I mean, I know the zip code that

he lives in very very well. Um, I know

the club that he goes to. I know the

world. No, no, I would. Of course not.

And I'm not mad at him. I'm just saying

I I I know the world well. And um of

course no uh no one in that world wants

to be seen uh helping Trump and Trump

has attacked him by the way in public.

So I don't think that helps either. I

think the structure of the Fed

governance is very weird. I think um I

I'm not exactly sure what the Fed is.

I've asked this question to a lot of

economists including Larry Summers.

Never really gotten a straight answer.

Like how is it that um this is beyond

political control? I mean, I don't know

if we're for democracy, shouldn't voters

have some say in how this is

administered? But they don't. I mean,

there's no direct mechanism for voters

to be heard um in this the single most

important institution in the American

economy. How does that which is a crypto

government organization? It's, you know,

administering US dollars. I don't I just

don't understand it. I think it's very

the idea that you're going to

depoliticize it by making its leadership

immune from the control of elected

officials strikes me as the kind of like

midcentury dumbness that got us NATO and

a lot of other bad institutions. I just

don't get it. The exact opposation

of the Fed be here I've asked this two

times. Can't seem to get an answer. What

what's the motivation of the Fed? Just

is it to stick it to Trump? Jason Jason

let me well let me give you another data

point. Okay now let's assume let's just

scenario play. Yes please. What happens

if Powell rips in a 100 basis point cut

right now? I'll tell you. So one part

which is mathematical is the interest on

the debt goes down. We save 300 billion.

But there's something else that happens

which is the Fed does control the front

end of the curve. Meaning, how do people

borrow money for small amounts of time

from one day to about two years? If you

make that cheaper, we know is it's a

test as true as time, what happens is

people borrow more money. That fuels

more growth. That will end up in GDP.

So, what actually happens if you cut

rates 100 basis points is not just the

300, but you can get this reflexive

positivity in the economy. What that

allows you to do is even if that causes

a little bit more inflation, you're

actually growing yourself out of this

whole thing. So then you ask yourself,

well, hold on a second. If the numerical

justification is there to lower rates

and it has all of these other positive

externalities for the United States

economy, why don't I do it? The only

answer is political.

I I wonder if Hold on. Let me just let

me let me teach you. Um, okay. So, we're

at 2.6% on uh inflation. He wants to get

it down to two. Feels like we're in

striking distance. Maybe you could maybe

give us a theory here, Sachs, of what

would the political motivation be? I

find it hard to believe that he's trying

to sink Trump for some reason as opposed

to maybe just being scared of inflation

popping up above that 3x handle, which

then triggers them to, you know, raise

rates. So, what's what's your theory

here? If you're pal, it's better to take

the risk of being Paul Vulkar than

Arthur Burns. I mean, that's that's

basically what it comes down to. For

people who don't Well, because what

happened is Arthur Burns let inflation

slip the leash in the 1970s and he's

remembered as a horrible Fed chair. And

then Paul Vulker came in and jacked up

rates to like I think close to 20%. And

caused a vicious recession in 1982. But

by 1983, the economy had bounced back

and inflation basically was under

control. And then the rate cutting cycle

started. And that rate cutting cycle

went for like 25 years. And then Reagan

got reelected in 1984. So you you know,

you rather be a vulker than than a Burns

if you're a Fed chair. Now you raised

the question, is pal political? Yeah, of

course he is. If you go back to uh was

it 2021? So, the first summer of Biden's

presidency, we got that shock 5.1%

inflation print of in May of 2021, if my

memory is correct. What did the Biden

administration do? They sent Janet

Yellan out to say it was transitory and

Pal got on board with the whole

transitory narrative. Exactly. And as a

result of that, he did not raise rates

for six months. And worse than that,

they continued QE. I think they bought

like 180 billion of bonds in that time

period and that's what allowed inflation

to get so out of control. Now, why is it

that Pal did that because he wanted to

get reconfirmed and yes, he was

nominated by Trump originally, but Biden

renominated him and he basically wanted

the reappointment by Biden. and he

wanted to get confirmed and then the

month after he got confirmed all of a

sudden he shifted gears and started

raising rates again once he was safely

in Wisconsin's office. So he did the

right thing in terms of raising rates in

the face of inflation once he was free

from those political incentives but for

6 months he was intensely political and

that cost the United States dearly I

think dearly dearly. So now if you're a

pal, you've got PTSD from that whole

experience and you're going to heir on

the side of not letting inflation come

back. I think what with inflation down

to 2.4%.

I think it is time to cut rates, but

he's fearful because again his

incentives are to be a Vulker, not a

Burns. Yeah. And uh you want to read a

good book? Paul Vulker is keeping at it.

great uh book about has uh Reagan going

to him and trying to get him to cut

rates. So, this is a reoccurring story

just on but you know if if he had done

the right thing in the summer of 2021 we

would never would have had that bubble

at the end of 2021. Yeah. Remember and

that that basically created a huge crash

in 2022 and we could have avoided a good

part of that if he had done the right

thing. You know like the Fed chair it's

not a hard job most of the time. I mean,

these guys sit in their ivory tower and

then once a quarter they come out and do

this, you know, and basically testify

and say a bunch of, you know, things

that no one can understand, but like

once in a while you got to get the

decision right. And he totally screwed

it up in that one time where he had to

get it right. Yep. And I would say this

could be one of those moments too where

I think he's being a little bit fearful.

I think that there's a simpler

explanation quite honestly. Like if you

look at Powell's history, he was he was

nominated as a governor by Obama. Then

Trump picked him out of the Fed to be

chair, but then he was reappointed by

Biden. If you look at the vice chair of

the Fed, Phil Jefferson, he was

appointed by Biden. If you look at

Michelle Bowman, who's the vice chair

for supervision, she was appointed by