Senator Rand Paul: Tariffs, Debt, China, and a Warning for America

We live on a house of cards because, and. most people don't know this, and I don't. want to scare your audience, the scare. your audience if I tell too much. >> Go ahead. >> I voted to raise the age of social. security, but it's not going to be. around unless you raise the age to 70. That's the only way that sticks around. >> Do we really need American primacy? >> He said, when you go back to Washington, make sure they know that wars with China. is not inevitable. But I think it's. overstated how great AI is going to be. the left, you know, has this uh modern. monetary theory and it and it sounds. ridiculous and it is except that it kind.

of worked for 10 or 15 years. >> If 40 to 50% of Americans are employed. directly or indirectly by a federal, state, or local government or government. contractor or earn their income from a. government check, can we actually reduce. spending? >> Here's the bottom line. I I voted. against the big beautiful bill because. of the debt ceiling, but also here's the. projections. What was at the heart of. the cover up? >> There's never been a more extraordinary. cover up in the sense that these people. were saying in public the opposite of.

what they were saying in private. [Music]. >> All right, besties. I think that was. another epic discussion. People love the. interviews. I could hear him talk for. hours. Absolutely. We crushed your. questions in a minute. We are giving. people ground truth data to underwrite. your own opinion. What do you guys. think? That was fun. That was great. going. >> Senator, thanks for being here. Thanks. for having me in your office for the. conversation today. I'm I'm really. excited for this. >> You grew up in Texas with a well-known. father, 12-term congressman, three-time.

presidential candidate Ron Paul. However, you became a doctor after. residency at Duke Medical. And I'd love. to hear a little bit about how you chose. that path instead of politics at the. beginning of your career. >> Well, that was sort of following father. also. You know, my dad's a physician, too. So, I went to medical school. in. fact went to the same medical school as. my dad. Um my dad is an OBGYn. He's. retired now. Uh we have a family of. several doctors. My little sister's an. OBGYn. My brother's a family doctor. I.

got two nieces, three nieces that are. doctors. So, a lot of doctors. But as a. kid, uh you know, I have distinct. memories of laying on the shag carpet. because we have had shag carpet in the. 70s and listening to him in uh I don't. know, Missoula, Montana on the radio. I'd hear the one end of him answering. questions. Uh I went to lots and lots of. his speeches. I was interested in the. books he recommended other people to. read and I read many of those. Uh he.

gave me a full set of Einran's novels. when I was 15 and said there's a lot of. good stuff in here but you know there's. some of the stuff we don't agree with. either. So, and uh but to be. open-minded, to take the good, the good. with the bad and uh to be able to filter. through, but that there was something. there about individualism and I still. believe that to this day, that there is. something uh you know, all the critics. hate Iron Rand. It's oh, she's, you. know, she's so simplistic, this and. that, but there is something that. connected with the American spirit, the.

spirit of ingenuity, the spirit of uh. being heroes. You know, it's the idea. that, you know, uh, you know, it's I. think why people were fascinated with. Elon Musk and capturing those rockets. from space that it's like, wow, we can. have somebody who really does cool. things once again in our country. >> Yeah. Einran's writing seemed to be. coming more preient than I think we. realized early on. >> I think that's why the people thought it. was simplistic because the characters. were character types. Nobody believed. they could ever exist that there'd be be. there would be middle management. There.

would be the Ellsworth Tui or the Peter. Keading in the middle of these. corporations and nobody believed that. their whole purpose would be mediocrity, right? And they purposely would try to. choose people based on the color of. their skin or their ethnicity over their. merit. Nobody believed that could ever. happen. That was such a a dystopian sort. of Harrison Burggeron. That was all. farce. That was dystopian farce until. now. You're right. It looks a lot like. reality. >> Here we are. Why did you make the career. shift into politics after being a doctor. for some time?

>> I practiced private practice for about. 20 years. Was a physician for 20 25. years. In your life, it's a lot of work. You go through an internship, medical. school, residency. I was about 30 when I. finished. And so. when my dad ran in 2008, really the. campaigns are a year in advance. So when. he ran in 2007 into 2008 for the. Republican nomination, I thought I'd go. and help. I sort of volunteered and. said, "Dad, I'll give some speeches.". And went out and gave a lot of speeches. on my own. Not really introductory.

speeches, but actually my own thing and. kind of felt, wow, this is great to be. able to sort of express yourself and. have an opinion. I always had an. opinion, but now I could find somebody. to listen. And so I did that in 2008, got the bug, and then some of being in. the right place at the right time. Jim. Bunning had been in the Senate two. terms. Uh he was a Hall of Fame pitcher, but he wasn't raising any money. it. looked like he might not run. And so one. day I'm at the office and this guy I. knew from a property rights group, you. know, too many, you know, lower property.

taxes kind of stuff, keep the government. off our land kind of stuff. He called me. up and he says, "Hey, I know this. reporter, this AP reporter, and we think. he leans kind of conservative and he's. from the Republican area of the state. Why don't you just call him up and tell. him you're interested?" So I hadn't even. talked to my wife about it or anything. I said, "What the hell?" So I called him. up and said, "Yeah, I'm thinking about. running." And uh I got a statewide. story. Then I got a national story. I. was like, "Wow, this is not that hard.". And so then I had a sort of a come to.

Jesus moment. I had to talk to my wife. about this. And uh she wasn't very happy. that, you know, we'd been married 20some. years that I hadn't bothered to mention. it to her. I said, "Look, there's no way. I can get elected. I'm just going to be. honest. I'm going to tell them we're out. of money. I'm not going to offer him. something for nothing." I said, "I'm. never bringing home any bacon. We don't. have any bacon. nobody will ever vote. for that and uh she gradually got over. it. Now she's my biggest champion. We've. written a couple books together and we. you know we work together well but um.

someone was being the right place at the. right time maybe having something to. say. The Tea Party movement which I. think my dad is responsible at least. partly for getting started that mo. movement was burgeoning in 2010. The big. radio talk hosts were Limbbo and Hannity. and Hannity still big on the radio. These hosts were out there hosting. rallies. They were talking about the. Constitution and the debt and it was an. exciting time. I uh uh I don't know if I. had announced yet. I was thinking about. it. My town's fairly small, 50,000 at. the time and we have an old square built.

in the 19th century. I went down to the. square. Somebody was having a tea party. rally. I didn't know what it was. And it. was open mic. I wasn't even invited to. speak really. And I spoke and there were. 800 people there. I'd never been to a. political rally in my town, Republican. or otherwise, with 800 people. There was. a real movement. That's why it kind of. makes me sad now that it's a it's a. movement that came and you know. >> did it go. >> came conquered and nothing happened. because uh some of the people left and. some of the people decided that debts. were okay if you had a Republican in.

charge and were bad if a Democrat was. >> That's really interesting because I. wanted to get to your core philosophy. and identity. On Wikipedia it says. libertarian constitutional conservative. tea party movement Republican. How do. you describe yourself, your identity? Senator, >> all of those things are are true to a. certain extent. Um, I like to say that. I'm I'm part of the Leave Me Alone. coalition. And then sometimes I'll say, you know, really I'm part of the Leave. Me the Hell alone coalition. And that.

means in all sort of aspects, personal, private, my contracts, my business, what. I do, my family, just leave just leave. me alone. And that encompasses a bigger. group than just conservatives, a bigger. group than just libertarians. Um, and I. would say there there was a long time. ago there was a guy named uh Frank. Meyers. And Frank Myers they called a. fusionist. He was a guy who was going to. be somewhere in between uh Buckley and. um Murray Rothmar. Murray Rothbart is. not as well known but he was a student.

of Von Mises and he was a libertarian. writer and Buckley everybody knows who. Buckley is. And that became the more. traditional conservative movement. And. the libertarians sort of said, "Well, we. like all that capitalism, everything, but we're worried if so much money goes. into the military that maybe the. military will become the state also.". And they were really against the state. in all facets. We want a small state. We're for defending the country, don't. get us wrong, but and so, but somewhere. in between those two, some of the. libertarians would have no military, some of them would have open borders, and then there was the conservatives.

that somewhere in the middle was a. fusion. and Frank Meyers uh was a part. of that. Was one of the cool things when. I first come up here, they invited me to. the Frank Meyers Society, like eight. guys that were like 80 and 90 years old. It was such a great dinner club. Uh but. anyway, >> does that make it hard to operate in DC. to to be fusion? Because the the the the. kind of mechanism the operating model in. DC seems to be policy by party. >> Uh you have to be a member of a party. and then leadership sets the agenda and.

everyone falls in line. Yeah. And I think that's really. disappointing about it. And I think a. lot of the public doesn't necessarily. like that and that's why a lot of the. public says they don't like either. party. Um I'm of the the belief that. like right now there's a great danger in. our country to losing a movement that. represents the free market, trade and. capitalism and all of those things. because I think we're moving towards a. movement that backs a person. And I I. feel the wrath all the time. I don't. back Donald Trump enough and so I'm to.

be, you know, uh, I get along with. Donald Trump actually on a personal. level better than some of his supporters. who've gone crazy and they don't seem to. remember. I've supported a lot of. supported his nominees. I voted against. his impeachments. I was one of the. loudest voices against them and yet they. can't stand if I oppose him on one. thing. That's not good. And also there. is something trade is not an incidental. issue. The trade is sort of a. fundamental aspect of capitalism and. Adam Smith wrote about it. In fact, one. of Adam Smith's u sort of great nuggets.

that he gave to the world was the idea. that the division of labor makes us. richer. So if you don't have to sit. around making your shoes, your clothes. or your tie, you can do something out, you have time to think and your. innovation is going to create more more. great things. But he also said that the. division of labor and the prosperity. that it creates is only limited by its. ex how far it extends. And I think what. he meant by that is by trade. So we, you. know, I I'm richer in my town because I. don't make my shoes. Maybe somebody else. in the town makes them. Then I'm even. richer when somebody in another state. makes them. But guess what? I got even.

richer when they were made in Vietnam. We all did. And that is being now uh the. fallacy is being promoted that trade is. bad, which really essentially means. capitalism is bad. Then we got people. promoting that we should own the. companies and the government should be. involved with ownership of the. companies. All that stuff. It worries me. that people are going to forget what we. once were for and what really is. important to be for, what made America. great, and that is capitalism. Some. would argue that this idea of what they. call the globalist agenda, which is to.

outsource our jobs versus reducing our. cost and increasing availability of. goods and services that we can benefit. from, has hollowed out America and has. caused a great economic depression for. many Americans and they can't seem to. find their way out of it unless we. create a more protectionist trade. environment. >> There's a lot to dislike about globalism. and what that represents. And to many. people and to many even libertarians, if. it means a big huge treaty organizations. that have labor rules and environmental.

rules and all these anti- capitalist. rules in them, that's not really free. trade or free market. But I will say. that there is a fallacy and it's. repeated adnauseium and it just is. absolutely tr untrue and the facts will. bear this out. Uh most people for the. protectionism say the middle class is. being hollowed out and we're being. ripped off. They're both absolutely and. unequivocally untrue. So if you look at. household income, and there's a good. website that does this, humanprogress.org. will look at this. Steve Lindsey at KO. is great on this. Look at household.

income for the last 70 or 80 years. And. you look at what percentage is middle. class, what are lower class, and what is. upper class. The middle class 50 years. ago, about 54% of the people in the. middle class, and now it's 51. Everybody's like, "Aha, the middle class. is shrinking." Well, the lower class was. like 37%. It's now 33%. It's like, where. did they go? They're being hollowed out. Yes, they're becoming rich. They're in. the they're in the upper class. The. upper class has grown. It's the one. segment and you have to constant dollars.

and call the upper class above $100,000. and the middle class 50 to 100. But. really, there's been a grace increase in. wealth. If you look further at things. like clothing, you can buy, you know, people, oh, hey, we lost the textile. industry. Well, I think that's sad in a. way, but you can get 10 times as many. clothes as a person in 1900 could. We. live twice as long. We uh by historical. standards, one of the best charts is u. prosperity per unit of GDP or something.

And you look at it and people have. called it, I think Jonathan height. called it the greatest, you know, graph. in the history of the world. >> Steven Pikner highlights this well. >> Same thing. Pikner does he's he's Pinker. does it as well and he's great. His book. Enlightenment Now is an amazing book. But anyway, this chart is for all of. human history. If this is prosperity and. this is time for all of human history, we lived on the x- axis. It's just an. amazing chart. In about 1820, when the. division of labor allowed the industrial. revolution and people to think about.

doing other stuff, you just had this it. it really is this curve that that just. is extraordinary. That's the history, but nobody wants to hear this like, oh, we're being hollowed out and trade's. bad. But then the second fallacy is. we're being ripped off on trade. And. this one, I think, is pretty easy to. debunk. A million people go to Walmart. last week, next week, and they all buy. TVs. At the end of the year, you say, "They all bought Chinese TVs.". Let's put a circle around all of these. trades and the country they came for.

The Chinese didn't buy crap from us. We. bought all these TVs. But a million. people went in and made a voluntary. trade where when they left their 600. bucks, they wanted less than the TV. And. Walmart wanted their $600. Every. volunteer voluntary trade ever made it. in humanity, every second of the day is. all mutually beneficial or it doesn't. occur. It's not even an equal trade. It's mutually beneficial. We both think. we got it. So, how can a million people. all think they got a great deal and make. a trade and then I draw a circle around. them and have this false accounting that.

says, "Oh, we all got ripped off by. China." It's just not true. >> So, what is the origin of the fallacy? Is it a political tactic. >> to drive votes? >> It's it's pride. And that's why I have. such difficulty counteracting this. Now. what amazes me is though for 100 years. economist right left and center all. decided that trade was making everybody. wealthy. It's more visible if you look. at the trade of the people who are poor. So the poor people got astronomically. they got uh their their their multiple. is much bigger because they were much. poor to start with. But if you look at.

China and us from 1975 on we both got. richer. But China was so poor that their. richness is more available. They didn't. rip us off. You know, this isn't Love of. China. I wrote a book called The Case. Against Socialism. I hate socialism. I. hate communism. I I wish the people. there didn't have to live under that. that authoritarianism. But they didn't. rip us off. And it's it's it's it's easy. to sell because nationalism is easy to. sell. Patriotism is easy to sell. We. hate the other country. We're good.

They're bad. And also anybody down their. luck. And I'm not saying well while the. historical trend is great for for the. society middle lower and and upper it's. not great for everybody. So there's. always pe being people aren't doing. well. Those people are attracted by. nationalism and they're protected by. blame somebody don't blame don't blame. myself or don't blame anybody else. It's. somebody else's fault. >> So walk me through the consequences of. tariffs. Where do they take us? Where do. they take the economy? Where do they. take us from an inflation perspective?

from a job creation perspective. onshoring which has been argued as. another piece like what's your view on. where this is going. >> you know um one of my favorite sort of. people complain I get a lot of. complainers right now about the tariffs. because they love the president and they. don't love my position so much and. really 75 80% of Republicans he's sold. on this issue that tariffs are good but. there's a I guess I'd start at the I'd. start at the macro level so you have uh. seven billion in spending for our. federal government five billion in. revenue so we're $2 billion short. >> two trillion two trillion. It used to it.

used to differentiate conservatives and. Republicans and Democrats. We as. Republicans would say, "Yeah, deficits. are bad and let's close it by lowering. spending." Democrats will say, "We'll. just tax the rich people." You know, rich people don't pay enough in taxes, which is also untrue. But then we'll do. it that way. And that was how what. differentiated us. But now everybody's. like, "Oh gosh, tariffs are so good. We're going to balance the budget. We're. bringing in revenue." One, it's a it's. really a pittance. It's a it's a I think. it's about a h 100red billion 150. billion more than last year is what's. going to come in this year and that over.

10 years might be $1.52 trillion but. we're going to borrow like $15 trillion. over the next 10 years but the when you. when you look at it and you say uh from. a global point of view is it good to. raise taxes most Republicans always said. we didn't like more taxes we we were. taxed that was part of the Tea Party. acronym is taxed enough already we. didn't want more taxes now everybody. wants more taxes it's inconsistent with. who we are. But it also, the other one I. love is that we're going to do it and. we're going to eliminate the income tax.

And I say, "Come to me with that. I. don't like tariffs very much, but I'll. vote for a 20% tariff." You know, I take. a sale, it's a sales tax. I'll take a. sales tax over an income tax. This is. being presented in addition. So, everybody needs to forget what they. think they're saying and understand the. tariffs are in addition. But there's. also an argument on the separation of. powers. One of the things our our. founders really struggled with was they. worried about tyranny of one person and. tyranny of the majority. And so the way. our government is structured is to try.

to, as Madison said, pit ambition. against ambition. And but I think they. never imagined that we'd have a Congress. without any ambition. We just basically. said, "Oh, did President Trump go ahead. just do what you want." And there's a. problem with that. He's declared an. emergency to raise taxes. I don't pay. the taxes. We pay the taxes, but you know, there are people analyzed. as a little bit done by the foreigners, a little bit done by the importer, a. little bit. Yes, but it is a tax. It's a. fee and we collect it here in our. country. It is a tax. The constitution.

says taxes originate in the house. And. uh you know, this one just originated. with the president with not even a. confirmation by the House or the Senate. when we get an AOC as a president, which. I hope never happens, she's going to. declare an emergency and we'll she'll. say no more gasoline powered cars or. lawnmowers or whatever else and they'll. send police to your house. So say I'm. just doing an emergency just like your. president did. So there is the danger. and people need to think about it and. this is where. >> the president. >> the president. >> well this is the problem with only being.

tribal and only being for your tribe. when your tribe is in power. You have to. think beyond this. So, for example, when. Biden was in power, there were two dozen. Republicans, and I was one of them, who. had a reform of the emergency power that. said when a president declares an. emergency, it expires in 30 days unless. affirmed. Right now, it's the opposite. The president's declared an emergency on. tariffs. If we wanted to stop him, we. could vote by simple majority. He would. then veto it, and then it would take. twothirds. So, right now, the way the. law is set up is presidential.

emergencies can only be stopped by. twothirds of Congress. Well, I mean, that's so dramatic it almost never. happens. We'd like to reverse it. But. all those Republicans who supported. reform of the emergency under Biden have. all bailed on me. And so when we. recently had a vote directly on whether. or not there was emergency with Canada, I was one of four Republicans. And most. of the people who had signed on to. emergency reform all of a sudden didn't. care that there was an emergency under a. Republican president. And none of this. is to say I dislike Donald Trump. I. actually like him very much as a person.

Play golf with him. support probably 80%. of what he's doing. Do I think he's. better than Harris? Oh gosh, just a. million times. I mean, I'm going do. anything to stop socialism and the. redistributionist, but doesn't mean I. should just roll over and no longer have. a thought, you know. >> Have you tried to align with the. Democrats to try and get this emergency? >> It's not trying to align with them, but. when they're right, I vote with them. Uh. they had an emergency to overturn the. emergency and I voted with them. It's a. privileged vote and very rarely can. people who object to the majority will. of either party get votes. The only way.

you get votes is by using special. procedures. So the emergency vote to. overturn an emergency has a privilege, meaning that it has to come to the. floor. So I voted with them and there. were four of us, four Republicans that. voted with them. >> You were also pretty well known recently. for being one of three Republicans to. vote against the big beautiful bill, >> right? >> Maybe you can just share the parts of. the bill that you were opposed to. >> Increase the debt ceiling by 5 trillion. This is not only extraordinary but. unheard of. No conservative in their.

right mind would ever vote for this. under Biden. In fact, when Biden did. propose stuff like this, all the. conservatives voted no. So, we sort of. lose who we are if we don't keep the. same standard under the same presidents. $5 trillion. But a lot of people don't. know this, but up until the last moment, my vote was still in play because I told. him I don't like a lot about it. It's. also going to add to the debt. And I. think that is true. And I we can go. through that in a minute. But up until. that morning, I met with Vance that. morning. Lisa Marowski was demanding. more stuff for Alaska. I didn't want.

anything for me or for my state in a. proial way. I wanted something for the. country was not not add so much debt. So. I said I'll vote to increase it 500. billion. And even that's like sticking a. dagger in my heart. 500 billion used to. be a year or two years. Now that's three. months. And they said they didn't want. it. I had long conversations with the. president. I spoke with him for 59. minutes the week before. I noted I. looked at my phone. my wife standing in. the kitchen and he spoke for 58 minutes. and 45 seconds and he just didn't the. debt ceiling. The Democrats will never. vote for it. I don't want to do it.

again. It's inconvenient. You know, I. don't want to talk about the debt. ceiling. But I won't talk about it. I'd. vote on it every three months. Um not. that I want us to default, but because. every three months we need to talk about. how we're out of whack. We need to talk. about why, you know, why are these. credit agencies downgrading the dollar? what happens if there is a dramatic. flight from the dollar. Um the thing. about economics and I don't claim to. know even a tenth of what smart people. know but things don't always happen. gradually. You know, if you think in.

your lifetime or my lifetime of the. different corrections in the market, they came in one or two days. You know, 2007208 came in like a day or two, right? Um there was one in the '9s, there was 1929. I think somebody told me. almost all the losses in the stock. market, if you take like seven days of. the last century, it's like 95% of all. the losses are in like seven days. But. it could be worse. If there's ever a. flight from the dollar and people are. talking about that they have bond sales, you know, they talk about how many. people show up. There's some kind of. ratio and it usually it's like I don't.

know 2.5 to one or something. It was in. the low twos, 2:1 of not many people. showing up. Interest rates are still, you know, pretty pretty high. But what. I've always fascinated by is people say, "Well, the interest rates are so high.". But I was always taught historically. that the interest rates are inflation or. expectations of inflation plus the. historic rate, which is about two or. three points. If I take money from you. for 30 years, you're not giving it to me. for less than two or three points. But. you also want inflation, too. So you. want three points for inflation and two. Well, that's about what interest rates.

are. So I don't think anybody knows. whether interest rates are too high or. too low. I think that's a silly. question, but if you looked at it in. historic terms, they're about probably, you know, the market's judging them to. be expected inflation plus about three. points, >> right? >> But just going back to the big beautiful. bill and your vote against it, >> right? >> I just want to understand how we got. here or your view on how we got here. So, you've read a lot of history, a lot. of philosophy. I've interviewed Ray. Dalio twice. >> I've met him. He's a fascinating guy. talking about his cycle of empires and.

you know we're it his kind of thesis is. we're one of six cycles. >> right. >> over the last 500 years and we're kind. of at the the tipping point here and. there's a a set of trends that are very. common he says. >> you know different characters same act. you know like it happens over and over. again and we take on too much debt when. we the country gets wealthy it grows it. the economy expands. >> we start to get offered free money we. take it we spend it all of a sudden. >> and one of the things you we we had a. dinner bipartisan in dinner with him. recently and one of the things he's.

saying is the way to get out of this. what we have to do is we have to get and. his isn't even dra I think draconian we. have to get 3% our debt our annual. deficit needs to be 3% of GDP well it's. 6% now so it'd have to be cut in half. and uh I think it's very reasonable and. a lot of people nodding their heads but. it takes a tough vote like I voted to. raise the age of social security and. people say god do you hate old people I. say no I aspire to be an old person I. want my social security and I want the. system to be around for ordinary people, but it's not going to be around unless.

you raise the age to 70. That's the only. way it sticks around. >> Is it that in order to get reelected, you have to offer your voters something. that they don't have today. And. therefore, every election cycle, you. have to show up with something else. No. one ever gets elected by saying, "I'm. going to cut back half or cut back a. quarter or 10% of what you're getting. today." You might, but is what is that. the dynamic or is this. >> I'm pretty positive that you don't have. to say, "I'm going to bring on the. bacon. I'm going to bring you your. freedom. I'm going to keep the. government out of your lives and I'm. going to uh allow you to become richer.

because freedom and capitalism makes us. all richer and I'm going to allow you. and it's going to be most mostly on. merit which is better than the. government deciding that. So I think you. can say that and I've said it. explicitly. I will never go home with a. check saying we brought you this to your. community because we don't have it and. it has to be borrowed that makes us all. poorer through inflation. It is that. fear though and the president has bought. into this. The president says social. security we can't talk about. Medicare. we can't talk about. And really on. Medicaid he severely limited what could.

be talked about. Food stamps. They they. nibbled at it. They talked about some. good things but most of it's in the. distant future. And and here's the. bottom line. I I voted against the big. beautiful bill because of the debt. ceiling. But also here's the. projections. The CBO had a projection. that was going to add three trillion. All the Republicans said, "Oh, CBO has. too low a grade throat. we can't re we. can't believe the CBO. Well, the authors. of the bill did something I agreed with. They said, "We're doing it based on. policy and this is what we project that.

the taxes will go on and that they. aren't really we're not giving a tax. cut. Most of that is just keeping the. same policy." I said, "I accept that. So, what are your numbers?" The authors. of the bill, the Republican supporters. of it said, "Well, the first 10 years, no, the first five years it's going to. lose 500 billion. So, we'll be more 500. billion more in the hole. the second. five years we'll make that up and we'll. go a trillion positive so we'll be plus. 500 I believe the first five years I. don't believe the second five years and. this is from the authors admitting and. the reason you know it's going to lose. 500 billion is this many tax cuts will.

pay for themselves over time but almost. all of them have a little bit of dip in. revenue in the beginning it's not a. reason to be opposed to tax cuts it's a. reason to at least be wary even if you. don't count the tax cuts that we already. had that we continued and you count the. new ones there's going to be a little. dip in revenue and maybe some of these. weren't that growth growth related tips. and things like that may not be that. growth laid to reduce tax on tips. So. that's going to be a dip down. But the. other reason why you know the deficit's. getting better, they they put $500. billion of new spending. So from the.

very beginning, this was this was. Lindsey Graham and the. military-industrial complex. They wanted. more money for the military. They. already got an increase in the military. last time. This is 150 billion for the. military and 150 billion for the border, which I'm for controlling the border. I. applaud the president for controlling. the border. He didn't need the 150. billion. who may, you know, 20 billion. would have probably been enough to. secure the border, but nobody's. conservative when it comes to this. >> I saw your hearing where I think you. challenged the the bill the amount. Yeah. The wall because you kind of went. through the numbers and it was uh.

>> pretty pretty striking that. >> it was on their website. The next week. they changed their website because they. didn't like me reciting their website. back to them. >> Right. So, where are we headed? 37. trillion of debt. If the debt gets. financed at five, six% which is kind of. where interest rates are trending, we're. talking about an incremental trillion. dollars a year of incest expense. Interest expense will probably become. two trillion a year, >> right? >> We don't seem to be cutting the budget. much. Everyone wants more. Everyone. wants more budget for their particular. interests and their states and whatnot.

What's your view on where we're headed. over the next 10 years? Barring a lot of. Rand Paul's getting elected to. >> Yeah, the the the left, you know, has. this u modern monetary theory and it and. it sounds ridiculous and it is except. that it kind of worked for 10 or 15. years. So Bush doubled the debt from 5. trillion to 10 trillion, but the. interest rates went in half. So his. interest payments the same. You know, we. went we went from five to 10 trillion. with the same interest rate. We played a. lot of games to do something similar. So.

for the last 10 years or so or maybe. eight years, we averaged our payment was. like one and a half uh% for the debt. That's what we were paying. Now it's. three and a half. That's a pretty. significant jump. But I think if they. stay where they are, it's going to be. even more. So we're at a trillion in. interest now. Could we go to two? And. what happens? All of these things are. fixable. America is a great place. because of capitalism. We just need to. start fixing them. And it's not even. draconian. just a little bit at a time. You know, for 12 years, I've been saying. just raise the age three months a year.

for the next 20 years and and you'll be. at 70. You may eventually have to go. higher depending on longevity. The other. thing you have to do is the age doesn't. fix social security anymore. You got to. means test it. And the only difference. we have with the Democrats on the means. testing, well, on all of it, if they. would agree to any reform, they just. want to tax rich people in the. beginning. So, there's a limit. your. social security taxes go up to about. 160,000 and they're indexed to kind of. keep creeping up a little bit. Um, which. I can live with that. But if there's a. choice whether rich people get less.

social security in the end or we tax. them up to $10 million, I'd rather do it. in the end because somebody making $10. million is investing in creating a lot. of jobs and I'd rather not stop that. But I don't care if rich people have. including me and I'm not that rich but. I'm upper middle class and I would get. less social security also. You can fix. the system that way. And I think we are. so dependent on it that uh it's hard to. go back to a pure system where we devel. it would be worked on charity and. private pensions. Um but we got to get. started on it. The longer you wait the.

more difficult it is to fix. >> Is there a point of no return that you. view? Is there a year or a debt amount. to GDP a debt ratio. >> that becomes a reversal? >> There's never Well, there is a point of. return of no return for a catastrophe. and I don't know that. If I would, I'd. be predicting the day and then I'd be. fine and everybody else would get, you. know, killed by the calamity. I don't. know. You got to be really smart or. lucky to predict those calamities. Like. the people who saw the housing crisis. were really smart, you know, and they. they figured that happening. Um, so I.

don't know that it is going to happen. But I think what's important, and I tell. people this all the time, you will. always get your social security check. You will always get your Medicare. It. will never end. But it just may not be. worth anything. So there will be a point. in time when we cut you your check and. there are colas but um what happens when. if you're if you're in 1923 in Germany. and you get annual colas didn't work so. well because the money was losing 30% an. hour you know there were times when the. German workers and was in 22 or 23 they.

wanted to be paid at noon because they. didn't wait till the end of the day. because it was depreciating so fast. colas work for a while but that cost of. living increases but they are somewhat. of a game. You have a problem. You're. creating this inflation. You You hate to. punish people, so you give them a cola. But the cola comes once a year. Part of. the breaking point for all this stuff. that has colas on is when you need to do. it every month. So that's much higher. inflation. And we've been. extraordinarily lucky. And I've never. really seen anybody write this as accur.

as as um I think um detailed as that. could be. I think we've exported our. inflation. I think we've created so much. more inflation than we have. But because. we import more than we export, we pay. them in the dollars. Some of them find. their way back into our stock market, put our stock market up. But you can go. to two dozen countries around the world. and they're trading in your dollars. So. the actual physical dollar never comes. back on some of these trades. And so I. think if you took what the M1's going up. and what the money's going up, and I. think you looked at it, some of it.

disappeared. Then they play the games. with paying interest to keep it in the. Fed, which I've got a bill to eliminate. that right now. Um, and that bill is. co-sponsored by Bernie Sanders. Um, we. paid 188 billion, the Fed did, in. interest to banks, not to loan money. Most of it went to five banks in New. York, the big five, but 40% of it went. to foreign banks. So, the Fed's buying. our interest with fake money. The. taxpayer still has to pay the interest. back to the Fed. The Fed used to use it. as profit and give it back to the. Treasury, and it's a a weird game. But.

now, instead of at least playing the. weird game, they're giving it to rich. people. So this is something reminiscent. of the u occupy wall street movement. where you got right and left coming. together. >> The free market is not dumb to this it. seems right. So the the global free. market dollar reserves according to the. IMF report on central bank holdings have. declined in the last decade. So it's. been shown the dollar reserves have. declined from 60% to 40% in the last 10. years. Meanwhile, gold has doubled from.

10 to 20% of central bank holdings. And. as a result, we're seeing gold prices, I. think, 3,600 bucks an ounce as of. yesterday. What do you think is the path. here for the dollar? Like maybe we can. just kind of talk to the average person. listening. Where's this taking us? Because the market wakes up to this and. they're saying these dollars aren't. really, you know, what they used to be. >> I think there are two scenarios. One is. the one we're used to and that's the. gradual scenario. then the Fed tries to. intervene to try to control uh.

inflation. I think they can, but I've. always asked this question to very smart. bankers and things. Is there a point in. time at which the Fed doesn't control. interest rates? And many times they'll. say, well, the Fed doesn't really. control the long-term interest rates. after the daily stuff that it's really. controlled by the marketplace, but when. is there a time in which um it just. becomes out of control? So you have the. the government shows up and says they. want to sell $20 billion of the debt. Nobody shows up and the Fed has to buy.

all of it. I think right now of our $36. trillion debt, the Fed has about a third. of it. Uh what foreign governments have. about a third and then the marketplace. has about a third. Uh what happens when. when when the private marketplace. doesn't show up? Is there a time in. which you have a Friday, they do this on. Fridays, I think you do a Friday sale. and nobody shows up. the Fed buys the. whole thing. What do you think happens. to that Monday? Do you think you'd be. trying to prepare to sell sell some. stock, you know, overnight before Monday.

opens? Um, and then I think you could. have a calamity and some of it can be. fixed and some of it we we live on a. house of cards because and most people. don't know this and I don't want to. scare your audience. Will this scare. your audience if I tell too much? >> It's great. It's going to get clicks and. views. >> Yeah. Okay. This is this is this is very. scary. So, you have $1,000 in your. checking account and you go to the bank. and you want all of it. That only works. if a few of you go because the bank, I. think, only holds 10% of your checking. account. Now, I want the bank to loan.

money. So, I give them $1,000 in a CD. They pay me 2% and they loan it out for. 3%. That's how banks traditionally make. it money. But they they have a game. I. have a a racket. This it's called. fractional reserve system. And it works. until it doesn't work. And once a bunch. of people go crazy, a bank run. We've. had bank runs even back in the 19th. century. >> We nearly had one with Silicon Valley. Bank two years ago. >> Exactly. Exactly. But it's really based. on that and I haven't been as involved. exactly with what the rate should be. But I I think lo loaning out 90% of your.

checking account is a recipe for a bank. run. We don't have it because we just. print more and we flood the system with. liquidity when when people get get. skittish. But there's a time at which. they can't control that and it's coming. But I try to get back to simple things. because I don't know when that's going. to happen. Maybe it's not going to. happen. The simple thing is you spend. what comes in. Most people do. You. borrow if you have an asset that the. bank can hold like your house or. something. This is what normal people do. and they spend what comes in. Your. government should behave that way. In.

the same way there are ramifications to. you personally. If you overspend, you'll. ultimately be punished. It's going to. happen to us. And so the first thing we. do, we don't even need to think about. the 36 trillion. We need to think about. the two trillion we're borrowing next. And that number needs to be smaller. But. I can tell you people aren't getting it. I I went, you know, I asked the. secretary treas the treasury secretary. basent about this. I said, um, you guys. are spouting all these numbers, the big. beautiful bill, and it's going to be. great, and there'll be no more debt, and. all the Saudis are going to invest 20.

trillion dollars in our country, and. we'll all be rich. And I said, but the. number I'm concerned about is will the. deficit be bigger or smaller next year? And he said, well, um, in terms of the. GDP, it will. But even that's not going. to be true. The deficit next year's uh. this year the one we're in that's going. to end in about three weeks is going to. be about 1.9 something trillion and. that's going to be about 150 160 billion. worse than last year and as a percentage. of GDP I think it's going from six to. about 6.2. So we are getting worse and.

it isn't I don't say this because I you. know want to be mean and get the wrath. of Donald Trump. I say this because as. Republicans we need to be for balanced. budgets, less spending no matter who's. in the White House. And it's going to. take some some back and forth with the. president to get there. >> Well, I want to introduce another kind. of frightening metric and statistic. So, by my estimate, and this is not reported. by anyone, this is just me doing some. addition in an Excel spreadsheet, somewhere around 40 to 50% of the.

American workforce age population. earn their income from directly from a. government or a government contractor. If 40 to 50% of Americans are. employed directly or indirectly by a. federal, state or local government or. government contractor. >> or earn their income from a government. check, >> can we actually reduce spending? >> And this is a real problem when you look. at our spending as a percentage of GDP, the spending part, the 7 trillion, the.

average over the last 5 years is about. 26%. Right now we're at 23 or 24% of. GDP. And I love it because the people. say, "Well, we'll just have tariffs and. we'll run the government off tariffs.". And I said, "Well, when they did that in. the 19th century, government was 3% of. GDP." I'm for that. You bring me. spending bills and I'll vote for all of. them to make us a 19th century. government of 3% of GDP and I'll vote. for all your tariffs. But that's a. that's a big change and it is a problem. and it's sort of a two-fold problem. The. people actually working for government. You got to make government smaller so we.

don't have as many government jobs. But. the other segment is is worrisome if not. more and that is the people not. participating in the workforce. They're. getting money but they're not. participating and it's like 38 40% 42%. depending on the state. So 40% of the. people eligible to work able to work and. not working. And this is um you know. libertarians had this debate like what. do you do? They don't some of them don't. want any border controls. And they say. and my dad used to say this and I kind. of agree with this part. You need to.

build a wall around the welfare state. and don't give any people coming into. the country illegal any access to your. welfare state. And I still agree with. that part. I think you still have to. have border security too and you have to. push back on millions of people coming. all at once. But there is a problem if. you had like for example and people will. tell you this in that have tomatoes or. anything else the things that uh require. handpicking you won't have enough. people. But you would have enough people. if Americans work. But a whole chunk 40%.

of them aren't working who should. But. if you want to if you if you want to. expel 20 million people from the country. and do that, you have to simultaneously. quit paying the people not to work or. you won't have enough workers. There is. also this argument. There was an. economist by the name of Julian Simon. who was a big promoter of this. Population is actually proportional to. wealth. >> So is trade. You look at big large. charts over decades and decades. The. more trade you have, the wealthier you. have. The more people you have, the. wealthier you have. And um there was a.

famous bet between Paul Erlick and. Julian Simon about five different. commodities and whether they'd be uh. more more rare after like a 10-year. period. Julian Simon, the libertarian. economist, uh wins his bet because. basically the real he said the real. resource, the real ultimate resource is. the mind. It's ingenuity. Nobody would. have imagined even in my lifetime the. whole concept of AI. We didn't imagine. smartphones or cell phones. We didn't. imagine all of these things. Um and.

we're going to have these big debates. maybe bigger than everything we've. discussed is whether or not we're going. to succumb to the lite philosophy or. whether we're going to believe that we. will over not only overcome but. technology we will succeed in. technology. It doesn't mean you can just. sit there and do nothing. You have to. adapt with the times and move forward. But we've, you know, the people breaking. the looms were wrong. Do. >> you think this transition with AI in our. economy and our society will actually. create such significant productivity.

gains that jobs will proliferate that we. can get people off of the welfare, off. of government jobs and into the private. workforce because they're. >> I don't know if it fixes that problem, but I am of the opinion that I don't. fear technology in general. And I was. having this conversation really with one. of the world's richest men and he told. me, "Yeah, that's fine." and I' I've. been with you and I'm not for the lites. except for and I said well humans you. got to have humans to make the robots he. says the first generation the second. generation of robots will be made by the. robots and I guess it doesn't it doesn't.

resonate with me because I have such a. profound uh belief in in the ingenuity. of of mankind that I think it is. limitless and um I don't think that we. need to uh smash the computers I don't. think we have to break you know somehow. shut down the chip companies and say. we're all going to be out of work. I do. think though there'll be a time that we. will have such great leisure that we. will we will actually choose to work. And I always tell people this anyway. I. want everybody in America to work not as.

punishment but as reward. There is a. reward to working. And I think even if. all jobs were eliminated, you'd have. sort of like secret societies where you. can go someplace and it'll be. underground and you have to do it under. threat of death, but you can go and. work. >> Yeah. You know, even if we have no work, there will be want people have. >> used to have yoga classes and Pilates. classes and massage therapists and many. of the luxuries that we take for granted. today that simply didn't exist a 100. years ago when the industrial. revolution, the second industrial. revolution was underway.

>> And as we fast forward the next few. decades, I think our life, and this is. one of Pinker's points, is just labor. per capita, like labor hours has gone. down steadily. We've given ourselves. more free time with the leverage we've. created on on human time. >> He he does this and so does uh Marian. Tupi at uh human progress. They talk. about time hours and so did William. Nordhouse the was the famous example. maybe one of the first from Yale. He was. the economist who wrote about how many. hours of work it takes to get light for.

a year to read by. And it was like in. the 19th century because you had to have. candles. It was like 10,000 hours of. work or no maybe it's a thousand hours. of work to have nighttime light to read. by. >> It's 10 seconds of work gives you an. entire year's worth of light. That. productivity increase nobody could. fathom and all the loites, you know, hate that kind of stuff and it's like. it's not going to happen and we need to. take the pitchfork and the axe to the. computers. Uh, no, we'll we'll figure it. out. Um, I do think though that the the.

the AI people and once again I'm not a. genius on AI. I don't write code. I. don't know any of that. But I think it's. overstated that uh how great AI is going. to be. I think it's going to be a lot of. cool things. And I think some people are. going to get caught. We're going to have. too many data centers at one point. And. I don't care how much electricity. they're sucking. But at the same time, I. think we're going to have too many of. them because people will say what the. one thing I see they do really well now. is they they uh are great adjacent to. things. uh you know I've looked up. political questions even today on what.

happens if we hand the reverse repos you. know at the Federal Reserve and it gives. a a pretty good explanation it's a. faster it isn't smarter than humans it's. much faster at doing the search that I. could have done manually by using the. Google search engine but these things. just kill and I wonder whether that's. you know everybody oh we got to break up. Google because they have a monopoly on. search engines I wonder how long it will. take until maybe it's already happening. that AI I will make Google less of a. dominant search engine.

>> This was actually in the court ruling. yesterday, the judge that decided to not. break up Google. There was a write up on. the rise of AI showing a a point. >> and that I'm in favor of on multiple. levels, but I think it's also cool. Nobody would have predicted, oh, oh, Google's going to have everything and. they'll the whole world market all of a. sudden something comes in new, you know, >> right? AI, like any other technology. prior, provides leverage on human time. and therefore leverage on human capital. And when you get a higher ROI on. capital, you generally have more capital. flow in, not less. So people will invest.

more in people. They will pay more to. people. They will hire more people as AI. tools are utilized. They're just going. to increase productivity for every. person. >> That's a great way of putting it. And I. hadn't thought of that because that fits. with my sort of Adam Smith model that. the extent of our prosperity is the. extent of the division of labor. And so. if AI gives me four more free time, you. know, then I'm I'm going to be smarter. and I'm going to think of other ideas. and maybe we will get to Mars. You know, >> I just want to ask your point on Doge. There was a lot of proclamations at the.

start of this administration about the. importance of Doge, Elon Musk's role in. the administration. The president and. others in the administration declared. Doge such an important part of the. efforts and all the cabinet members were. incorporating Doge team members into. their work. Today, is Doge dead? No, I. still met meet with people in government. who I think are part of Doge were uh. probably colleagues and friends of Elon. Musk and brought into the situation. I. think they've been a great addition. because one, they're people who know. about profit and loss and they're people.

who have been successful in business and. the fact that they've been selected by. the marketplace as being successful. people means they're good people to have. in government. Is it everything I'd. wished? No. But that's not the Doge. people's fault. That's people resisting. Doge and resisting the cuts. I like the. fact that the president pushed on with. another round of the foreign aid cuts. and he's doing this pocket resision and. you know I am a stickler for the rules. and for the constitution. The. constitution is very explicit on how you. spend it but it's pretty silent on not. spending it. And I think the best way.

for people have their doubts about. whether they should do it is imagine we. need an aircraft carrier and we hire. somebody who looks at every nut and bolt. like Elon Musk and his rockets. All. right, we hire Elon Musk and we give him. a billion dollars and he says, "This is. crazy. I can do this for $800 million. like this." And he probably can. And. that's probably true of every aircraft. carrier we have. So he does it for 800. million. >> Should we be forced to spend the 200. million that this this person found in. savings? Should we go to Las Vegas and. have a big convention for all the GSA. people with champagne and everything? No. It's ridiculous. The money should go.

back to the Treasury. Now, the. appropriators on both sides of the aisle. say, "No, it's been appropriate. It. should be spent." but sort of ignores. the fact that we're $2 trillion over. budget. If you had a balanced budget, you could argue, well, we want it to be. spent. If you have $2 trillion in the. hole, if you don't spend it, we should. be applauding the savings and the money. should go back to the Treasury. So, I'm. with them on the recision stuff. I want. more of the Doge cuts. I'm all for it, but the push back, and it's bipartisan, the push back, it's the spenders, it's.

the big spenders in both parties that. have pushed back on Doge, but I still. wish them success and still am for them. I was struck by how many Senate. confirmation hearings I watched where. senators blatantly spoke on camera about. the need to keep dollars flowing to. their state and that was the motivation. It just drove me nuts. Anyway, we'll. move on. I want to talk about your new. book, Deception, The Great COVID. Coverup. What was at the heart of the. coverup from your point of view? >> Some people get nervous when you talk. about cover up or conspiracy. They're.

like, "Oh, you're one of those crazy. people." And I think the best way to. think of a conspiracy is the way George. Carlin put it. George Carlin said that. it's not necessary to have a cabal of. people, you know, that are all evil that. get together in a room to have a. conspiracy. All that's necessary is to. have a convergence of interest. The. convergence of interest in COVID was. holy crap, we funded this. And so if you. are Anthony Fouchy and you know that. you've made a deal to do very dangerous.

research in China, one because there's. less oversight in China and there's. complaints beginning to circulate in. America. Let's outsource this to China. What's your first thought? We got to. cover this up. And that's exactly what. he was doing. The phone calls went on in. our in my book. My wife helped me write. it. We go on in vivid detail of the. minuteby minute of him going till 3 in. the morning that first night. Emails. going back and forth and back and forth. Jeremy Ferrar is his counterpart at. Welcome Trust in England.

He is saying, "I didn't know what a. burner phone was. I had to buy a burner. phone. My wife said I should talk to my. uh brother, bring him in in case. something happens to me." And then he. goes on to say, "It was no big deal. It. turns out it just came from animals.". It's like, well, you think the animals. are going to kill you? Why are you. getting a burner phone? Why are you. giving your last rights to your brother? These people were very concerned. Maybe not that they were going to be. killed by foreign agents, but that the. public was going to find out that they. had been funding this very dangerous.

research and that millions of people die. because of lack of oversight. But I go. through the emails. There's never been a. more extraordinary cover up in the sense. that these people were saying in public. the opposite of what they were saying in. private. So freedom of information. became the the the tool that uncovered a. lot of this and thousands of people, you. know, helped to get this done. But in. private, Anthony Fouchi is saying I'm. 50/50 whether this came from the lab or.

animals. in publicly saying you're a. conspiracy theorist and should be. treated as crazy and that we should uh. expune you or we should expose you. We. should bring you down. Him and Francis. Collins are talking back and forth about. bringing down Jay Badacharia and uh all. of the others that were exposing this. stuff. This is just extraordinary. We have the. we have the proof. You're saying they. knew that their funded research which. was done in China because there was less. oversight is what ultimately led to the.

development of SARS KV2 and it escaped. from the lab. >> They knew there was a high everything's. a a proportion. Everything is a. percentage. They knew there was a high. chance it was and they they chose to. cover it up because in the book I say. this is about the business of science. This isn't about science. It's about the. business of science. And people have to. realize there are some good people in. this world. There are good scientists. who want to cure cancer. But there are. many people getting millions of dollars. and there's nothing against money. I'm. all for money and good people should be. paid for important discoveries. But they. shouldn't shouldn't be paid not to tell.

us the truth and it should be exposed. I. think all the scientists should have to. reveal their royalties. Not one. scientist in government reveals their. royalties. >> Some of them are now getting millions of. of dollars in this stuff. Fizer paid 800. million and Madna paid 400 million and. they've taken that money and now they. put it in a foundation that I have no. oversight in government over. Government. has no oversight of there's an NIH. foundation that has $1.2 trillion in it. given from big pharma for their share of. the COVID vaccine. So no, it's an.

extraordinary thing where in private. they were very open to the fact leaning. towards and in favor of the fact that. the virus came from a lab. In public. they were disdainful. They got Facebook. to take all our crap down. They got. Facebook to take down the discussion of. it as a conspiracy. That's an evil thing. to do. And it's it's dishonest. It's not. just you're a bad person. If you were in. the government and you were leading. people astray as to the cause of. something because you find it you. deserve to be punished really in a. criminal way.

>> I saw your heated exchange with Fouchy. There was a a video. It's about nine. minutes long. It went viral. you and uh. questioning uh Fouchy. um about gain of function research and I. just want to talk about the origin of. gain of function research because it's a. term of art that's got different. definitions right depending on who you. ask Fouchy obviously disagreed with the. definition what's your view as a doctor. as someone who's worked in science and. as a political leader about the role. that government should play in.

researching ahead of the curve so that. understanding what may come next which I. think is part of the argument for some. of this research that we need to. understand how viruses can evolve so. that we can prepare for the next. pandemic because if we don't there will. be a congressional hearing saying why. didn't you prepare enough. >> so there's different aspects to this. should we know how viruses evolve. absolutely should we test viruses and. infections from different natural. sources yes gain of function is. different than that gain of function is.

forcing evolution in a direction so gain. of function is I take a rat and I put. human lungs in it. Not literally human. lungs, but I have a they will express. receptors that make cells think that. they're invading a human. So, I give it. a virus and I run it through and nine. nine rats survive and one's sick as. What I do is I take the really. sick one, I culture the virus out and I. do it again. And every time I just keep. culturing it till I get a virus that. really attaches to human cells. We. believe COVID is that because most.

animal viruses, the aven flu right now, if the aven flu is not manipulated in a. lab, it can infect a human but doesn't. go human to human. It has trouble. That's the way animal viruses are. When. CO started, it hit humans and went. everywhere. It just there was nothing. stopping it, which made us think it was. pre-addapted. There are many other. reasons why we think this happens. But. as far as gain of function, what should. be regulated and what shouldn't? One, it's very dangerous. Viruses are more. dangerous than bacteria if they're. aerosolized. something that can spread. through the air can be incredibly. dangerous. Um, lethality. Should you.

increase the lethality of it? Um, some. of these viruses start with 50%. lethality. And if you want to know what. that's like, read Barbara Tukman's about. the 14th century calamity and the black. plague. When a third of Europe died, I. mean, we're talking about setting back. civilization hundreds of year. We're. talking about entering the stone age. We. we some people think we could lose 10%. of our population and we wouldn't get. chlorine in the water. we'd no longer. have portable water and we would have. riots like you've never seen in just a. disaster. So aerosolization, increasing.

the lethality, increasing the. transmissibility are all dangerous. things. They did all of that and yet he. argued, oh well, you can't have gain of. function unless it was intentional. And. it's like, well, if you're running it. through human humanized mice or rats, you're pushing it you're pushing its. evolution to be infectious in humans. And uh you know he he basically lied. One day he came and they had actually. changed the the definition on his. website the day before. So they knew I'd. been arguing that it was gain of.

function. They actually literally. changed the definition on the website to. say it doesn't match the definition. >> You would still support research into. where viruses are headed and protecting. the population and doing this this. research but not in this directed. engineered way. >> Right. So there's a there's a big. difference and even many some of the. people support Fouchy actually support. me on this. Identifying viruses. mostly a good idea but still you have to. think about it. A lot of these viruses. are 300 feet underground in these. enormous bat caves in South China. So.

should you go down 300 feet underground. and just randomly get as many as you can. and take them back to a lab in Wuhan. Well, there's the danger that one you. got is the one that's going to kill all. of mankind. Maybe it was never getting. up and other viruses would dominate it. and never was getting up to service. You. should check the humans who live around. the cave. You should check viruses that. get up into our world. I'm not sure you. should bring viruses from very remote. areas to big cities. But then it's worse. than that. The big virus identification, which sounds benign. They were taking. the corona viruses. They were taking a.

backbone of it and they have a new one. they found in a cave. They were taking. the S- protein off a new one and. sticking it on a backbone. the backbone. is infectious and they're wanting to. know does it make it more or less. infectious. Well, that's really a recipe. for discovering something that maybe is. a disaster. It isn't helping and and. most most of the people who follow this. that oppose gain of function say no gain. of function research has developed any. vaccines. But here's further I think a. compromise and a moderation of this. I. don't want to ban it. I want to set up a.

presidential commission of scientists. who are not currently employed by NIH, don't have grants that I can give them. bigger grants if they agree with me. And. I want them to evaluate this. But not. only do they need to evaluate the. civilian side of this, they need to. evaluate the classified side because. here's what happens in our government. And I only know this much because they. won't tell me either. They say, "Well, the Chinese are doing this." Well, then. we need to do it. You have to, oh, the. Chinese are doing this. They're working. with Norberg virus. I'm just making this. part up of which virus they're dealing. with this very dangerous virus. Well, we.

should too. That is the basically the. logic and what it takes to get a. research grant in the classified area. that the Chinese are doing it. Well, you. know, we might have an accident doing. something the Chinese are doing that the. Chinese shouldn't be doing and we should. be trying to stop them from doing, but. we could kill the world also through an. accident. >> Uh even the safest labs in our country. have dozens of accidents every year. >> Fair enough. Do you feel like there's. been an erosion of public trust in. science and scientific institutions in.

this country? And importantly, when people lose faith in science, which. is meant to be the source for objective. truth, a process by which we discover. the truth through testing and. experimentation, hypothesizing, testing. and experimentation, and looking at the. results objectively, >> does it not create space for people to. come in with untruths and convince the. public of untruths being true? >> Right. Absolutely. And so, the biggest. one they're talking about now is vaccine. hesitancy. So, and people say, "Oh, it's.

all the right wing. It's people crazy on. the right wing that are creating this. vaccine hesitency." And I say, "Well, if. you tell people things that aren't true, they become distrustful of all science.". So, I'll I'll tell you one right now. I've had this back and forth with C Bill. Cassidy, the senator from Louisiana, and. with other members of the establishment. medical community. Does your two-day old. need a hepatitis B vaccine? I just went. through this personally. >> Yeah. >> And we we opted not to and we have to. deal with it in the schools and we've. been having this debate about how. >> we did the same thing. We did it later.

on in school. But here's the thing. Does. your two-day old need There's one. indication for your two-day old get it. Mom has hepatitis B and you have to. within 12 hours give them the vaccine. and you have to give them imunoglobulin. which is like a a monoconal antibbody. against hepatitis. But they test it. already. So if the mom does not have. hepatitis B, is there any indication. with hepatitis B? No. In fact, you know. what the honest people will tell you? They'll say, "Oh, no, but we have you. there and we can get much better. compliance by forcing it and pushing it. in the hospital." The other problem is.

this. There's so many problems on so. many levels. The hepatitis B vaccine. wears off. When does it wear off? About. 10 to 12 years. When might you want to. inoculate your kid for hepatitis B? If. you are worried about your teenager. getting involved in sex, drugs, and rock. and roll, and IV drugs. That's when it's. going to happen. You might consider the. hepatitis B vaccine. Plus, he's 12 years. old at that point and much bigger, stronger, and able to take whatever you. give them. But they are creating vaccine. hesitancy on this because they're lying. to us. They're absolutely lying to us. COVID vaccine the same. People think I'm.

antivaccine. Uh my age, I'm 62. I. probably would have taken it. I'm still. a little iffy on some of the details, but I the reason I didn't take it is I. got infected in March of 2020. I had it. and I didn't take the vaccine. But would. I give it to my 5-year-old right now? Hell no, I wouldn't have. Would I have. given it to him in March of 2020? No, because all of the initial evidence out. of uh China was children. They weren't. even sure if they were getting sick. But. when they started doing the testing, they found out they were all getting it. and they weren't getting sick. >> It's like a lot of social discourse and. politics. It's become so binary. There's.

no nuance and there's no gray area for. conversation about some of these make. sense, some of them do not. Why can't we. agree that we can each have a different. point of view on that? And. >> most of Europe doesn't do the COVID. vaccine or push it on goods. So, I think. I blame them and actually do want people. to believe in science. I come from a. scientific background. And I've had uh. papers published in scientific journals. You know, I come from that background. But uh you have to be honest with. people. And I also believe people are. smarter. You don't have to have a PhD to. know people are lying to you about the. FB vaccine.

>> Just today, Putin Xi and Kim Jong-un. stood together in Beijing. Very dramatic. show of strength and unity as a group. What does it mean for America to be in. competition with China? Is this going to. evolve into a conflict from your point. of view? Or is there a way to carry the. world forward where we all have. prosperity where we all progress, where. all societies succeed, where they. cooperate, and we have a multipolar. world that doesn't dictate a winner and. a loser. Do we really need American. primacy? >> The shorter answer is yes. The longer.

answer is more complicated. Um Graham. Allison wrote a book, The Thusidities. Trap, and. >> we interviewed him at our show last. night. >> He's amazing guy. Really, really bright. guy and a guy I'm fond of. He you know. talks about up and cominging powers and. is is war inevitable and interesting and. I don't know if this commander but I met. with one of the Pacific fleet managers I. don't want to name him because I don't. want him conversation but he said when. you go back to Washington make sure they. know that war with China is not. inevitable and I thought it's a profound. statement from a guy who's going to be. in charge of the war and out there.

fighting on the front lines and uh I. think it is very possible and I think it. but it gets back to fallacies um can you. trade with China where you both get rich. and it's not they're ripping us off. Uh. I think yes and I think that is the. truth of the matter. Since 1975 on, we've had a trade deficit every year and. we got richer and so do they are there. problems and dislocations in industry? Yeah. But I would actually argue what. killed the steel industry or hurt the. steel industry the most in this in this. country was actually protectionism. Um. they've been protected for long one. antitrust killed them first when they.

broke up US steel and that became them. less competitive with foreigners because. they were smaller. But then the second. thing that went after them is we did try. to protect them. This isn't the first. time we tried to protect steel. We've. been trying to protect steel. As we. protected steel, what did it do? Did it. breed uh better and more uh profound. market decisions or worse decisions? So, if you're selling me chairs and I tell. you, you sell them for $50, I can say, well, we'll put a tariff on you, sell. them for $100. Are you going to be more. efficient or less? You know, you won't. make as wise a decision because you're.

being protected from the competition. And so, all of that happened with with. steel industry. But I think we can we. have to get through the fallacy part, but we also have have to understand that. I think we're pushing in the wrong. direction. There's a possibility. People. think we're going to defeat them and. we're going to come out on top because. we're so, you know, great and. protectionism is going to show how great. we are. But them all meeting together to. me shows one other possibility. And I. don't know what will happen. Nobody. does. But there's one possibility that. finally unites them enough that they do. everything in their power not to use the.

dollar and maybe they can displace the. dollar. They already try in their. transactions. And so I think we we we. use the the stick in foreign policy and. you have to have it, but we should have. a carrot offered as well. Um I just met. with some Syrian Americans today, physicians mostly and uh uh. intellectuals and u engineers and things. and they want to get rid of the. sanctions on Syria. And I say finally, now they did like that. I think this. group liked the sanctions before, but. they want to get rid of them. Finally, somebody wants to get rid of sanctions. because there has to be a reward. And so.

even with countries we find distasteful. and often are distasteful. Iran, there. has to be an offer somehow to get rid of. the sanctions. I would send my diplomats. to China. I'll give you a great example. Blinken and Yellen went to China and. they were screaming, pitching a fit and. and telling the Chinese how bad they. were. One that's not very good. diplomacy, but they wanted them to stop. selling dual use parts to Ukraine. I. mean to Russia in the Ukraine war. And. so I said, "Well, it's a reasonable. goal." But had I been in charge, I would.

send my diplomats to China and I would. say, "Look, the Chinese don't like to. lose face. They don't like you insulting. them in their own country. Quietly say, you know, this sanction I think is. costing you about $50 billion worth of. of wealth. We'll remove it, but you got. to quit selling them the dual use." They. would never admit that we pushed them. into doing it. It's a trade and it's. transactional and diplomacy sometimes. needs to be that. We have a lot of. people both in Congress and and involved. administrations who are much more black.

and white that there are good and bad. people in the world and the bad people. need to die and we need to defeat them. utterly. And I wish they would die and. go away, but you know, I can't that kind. of attitude. We're going to be waiting a. long time if we think sanctions is going. to get rid of the Communist Party in. China. Capitalism might someday. And. everybody complained, well, Deng. Xiaoping opened it up and it they still. have repression and capitalism. It's. true. But I think you might argue and. this isn't a great argument for current. China, but that China may be a better. place than it was under Mao. I mean,

people who've been there tell me that it. definitely is 10x improvement in GDP per. capita. You visit a modern Chinese city, it's like living in the future, >> right? >> People are very happy, it seems, despite. the. >> but not an argument for socialism, but. an argument that most of that's actually. due to the amount of capitalism they've. allowed to come in. There was a. interview with the guys from the I think. it was the Hoover Institution that it. was actually the entrepreneurism in the. country. Political future for you, Senator, or are you thinking maybe you. could run for president again in the. future? >> You know, I think um it depends on what.

happens in the next year or two. I think. there needs to be a voice within our. party that is more libertarian free. market. I think we have populism and. protectionism covered and I think there. will be many errors and many people. competing to be heirs of Donald Trump in. the protectionist front. I don't think. it's good for our country and I think it. will make us less wealthy and ultimately. could really lead to a calamity. um if. things are rosy in three or four years. and the economyy's percolating along and. it is a possibility. It is a possibility. that the tariffs as as bad as I think.

they are are not a big enough percentage. of the overall GDP to slow things down. and that capitalism is still vibrant. enough to overcome the tariffs. There's. a distinct possibility if that's true. we'll get more tariffs and we'll get. another protectionist populist. president. Um I want to be that voice. whether it's in the Senate or running. for the presidency. I don't know. I. think right now, all things given, uh, free markets and free trade isn't isn't. very popular right now. People are all. making excuses for why we should own. Intel. Howard Lutnik thinks that's part. of that's capitalism and, you know, that.

tariffs are lowering taxes and all. gobbledegook that makes no sense. If. that if the economy still percolated on, people may still accept that uh nonsense. as truth. >> I've been to DC a number of times in the. last year or two. I always tell people. I'm disappointed when I meet with. members of Congress when I come back. from DC because I hear the same thing. over and over and I don't see a. progressive voice that actually speaks. to where this nation needs to go. I. often consider myself a libertarian. So. I want to thank you for your service, for your leadership, for your voice.

Thank you for being here today. >> Thank you. [Music]. I'm going all in.