RADIOMay 14, 2025

FORCED Compliance to Leftist Regimes? New AI Law Exposed

The European Union is preparing to force American AI companies to comply with a new law governing “hate speech.” Glenn speaks with Justin Haskins, the co-author of his “Great Reset” book series, about how this will “force AI developers, no matter where they are in the world, to adopt all of these EU ESG rules and to embed them into their AI systems.” Will this turn AI algorithms even more woke? Apparently, ChatGPT has already begun making the changes. But the law isn’t entirely bad …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anyway, so we were talking about AI, what we have just learned in -- from polling, which is both good and bad. People are at least really starting to understand this, which is good.

If they don't understand this, or they only understand it, like we understood social media when we got on. Have you seen the Twitters? I'm on Facebook.

If we approach AI like that, we're doomed. Because, by the time you figure it out, everything will be different. And so it looks like people are starting to pay attention to it, before we get there.

JUSTIN: And they want rights and protections embedded in it. That's what they want.

GLENN: That's great.

Now, talk to me about the EU. Because the EU has decided, we're not playing this game. We don't have to be the first. First of all, you wouldn't be. But we don't have to be the first.
We're just going to be the ones that set all of the rules.

JUSTIN: Yeah.

The expanse that -- expansion of power in the European Union, during the Biden administration, into today.

Has been slightly unbelievable. This is just another example. We talked about the EU/ESG law before. Where they're trying to impose ESG on all of America and the whole world.

Well, this is similar to that. They passed a law called the AI Act in 2024.

So last year, they passed it. A lot of the law. Some of the law has already gone into effect earlier this year. More of it goes into effect in August. Penalties and things like that for non-compliance go into effect over the next couple of years.

GLENN: This is part of the stuff where you can't say anything.

You know, the -- the -- or the governments disagree with you. Go to jail.

Or is this basically, all these lays, for the high-tech companies.

JUSTIN: These are for big tech companies. That's what the purpose is. The idea behind these is to force AI developers. No matter where they are in the world, they could be in America or Canada or the EU or someplace else.

GLENN: Just not Canada because they don't care.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Well, they let them slide. To adopt all of these EU sort of like ESG rules.

And to embed them into their AI systems. And if you -- and their way of determining whether this might apply to you, is not whether you have an EU. Or not whether you have an AI system offered in the EU.

It's not even whether someone in the EU uses your AI system from the EU.

It's based on the use of an output from an AI system.

So, in other words, if I have ChatGPT produce a -- an offensive transphobic meme. And that is used by somebody in the EU.

Because you sent it to somebody in the EU.

Then some influencer in the EU spreads it all over the place. That's enough to bring your AI system under their law. Okay?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

Now, it's a super complicated, absurdly ridiculous law.

GLENN: I have to tell you, you know what, because what I would do. If that were the case.

And we had a president here that was going to allow those punishments to stand.

I would just -- I would find a way to embed some sort of code, that would not allow it to be spread in the EU.

I don't even know if that's possible.

You would just say, cut them off.

I don't want anything in the EU.

JUSTIN: What's crazy about this, even if you didn't offer your service in the EU, just the output alone. It's like, you have to force big tech companies not to operate in the EU. And why would they do that? Because they can make money in the EU.

That's the genius of the EU.

So what's amazing about this is.

Before we get into that, the requirements. What are the things that you have to do if you're a covered company under this. There's all these obligations that you have to do. You have to conduct detailed risk assessments. You have to build in human oversight, maintain logs, testing protocols, submit extensive documentation for EU regulators.

The worst of it all, you have to build a risk mitigation system, to avoid actions considered harmful by the EU into your EU systems -- into your AI systems.

Okay? Now, what is a risk mitigation system exactly? How do they define risk under this law? Well, risk is so broadly defined. That almost anything could be considered.

It's essentially whatever the EU regulators want to ask you to stop doing.

They can ask you to stop doing it.

Or else you pay these massive fines.

How big are the fines, you might wonder?

Well, depends on the violation.

But for most of the violations that I think we would be concerned about. It would be 3 percent of total worldwide revenue for that company.

GLENN: Nonprofit!

Revenue.

STU: Revenue.

GLENN: If you run a regular company.

I mean, it's usually a good return is six to 8 percent on your dollar?

He texted take.

JUSTIN: We're talking about billions of dollars.

GLENN: We're talking about gigantic proportions of -- if you're taking straight revenue, your profit could be gone.

JUSTIN: Yes. Exactly. So it forces compliance. Forces it. Very similar to the ESG law that we had talked about before. Except, it's focused on AI.

So they're requiring these companies to adhere to these absurd rules. They're going to do, because they're requiring these companies to adhere to these absurd rules.

They're going to do it. Because they will make money off of it. So I want to give you specific. Give you some specific laws from the law.

So in the law, there's this section where they basically lay out their intent. And in their intent, which is pages and pages and pages long, they
about risks.

Now, some of the risks that they're concerned about, and they're trying to stop with this law. So this is what is in their mind, this is how courts will interpret it in the EU, this is why it's important. It says, when they're talking about general purpose AI models. They're talking about a systemic risk that a big one might cause so they're talking about ChatGPT or something like that. It says that -- it could pose systemic risks which include, but not limited to any action or foreseeable negative effects, in relation to major accidents. Disruptions of critical sectors and serious consequences to public health and safety.

Any actual or reasonably foreseeable negative effects on Democratic processes.

Public and economic security, the dissemination of illegal, false, or discriminatory content. Then there's a whole bunch of other things I'll skip down. Risks from models making copies of themselves, or self-replicating. In which models can give rise to harmful bias, and discrimination. With risks to individuals, communities, or societies.

The facilitation of disinformation or harming privacy, with threats to Democratic values and human rights. A risk that a particular event could lead to -- could lead to a chain reaction, with considerable negative effects. That could affect, up to an entire city, an entire domain activity. Or an entire community.

STU: What!

JUSTIN: Now, this is a law. This is what they put into the law. So -- so --

GLENN: I don't even know what that last one means.

JUSTIN: It's anything, Glenn.

It summarizes, whatever we want.

So we -- I asked ChatGPT.

Are you -- are you concerned.

You know, is this something that you're concerned with.

It's already supposed to go into effect. Are you doing anything?

ChatGPT says, yes. We've already been changing. OpenAI has already been changing its algorithms to conform to this and other laws like it.

It's already happening.

So we've been sitting here, talking about, why is AI doing all this crazy, woke stuff. And why is it only promoting certain views of various issues or things like that.

Well, because it's being forced to do that.
In part, at least, because of the European Union.

So while China and America are in a race to -- you know, the AI race, to see who will develop it first.

Europe is just like, we don't really care who develops it first.

GLENN: Okay. So that's a really cute idea.

May I take it to the last big possible destructive force. And that's the Manhattan Project.

Europe could be sitting there, going, well, you know. Russia might develop their own nuclear weapons.

And America. But we will make the rules. Hmm.

Well, maybe.

If Russia and America were like, okay.

You can make the rules.

I mean, if China and the United States were like, I don't really care.

I mean, we're not -- we're not doing it.

JUSTIN: Agreed. And so one of the things that is in here that is good. We're talking about some of the good stuff that is in it. There are direct problems on the use of AI.

So it's banned. Not a penalty.

Like, you can't do it.

That deals with AI that exploits human vulnerabilities like age or disability. Certain social scoring.

GLENN: What does that even mean, though?

JUSTIN: Of course. That's always the problem with these things.

The use of AI for subliminal mind altering apps and things like that.

They don't want that happening.

GLENN: Sure, yeah.

Right.

JUSTIN: I mean, there's stuff New Testament.

Well, yeah. I don't want -- I don't want to be subliminally.

GLENN: It's all ephemeral.

How are you going to prove that? It's happening now!

JUSTIN: It's whatever they want. That's the power!

GLENN: It is show me the person, I will show you the crime.

JUSTIN: Yes.

And so what you need. By the way, there's a minority report type thing in here. That says, you can't use it to commit crime and arrest people for it.

GLENN: Why not?

Just use the cameras.

JUSTIN: It's realtime. You don't need to predict it.

GLENN: Yeah.

JUSTIN: I think the main part of all of this is why would America allow the EU to dictate how it's designing its AI program?

GLENN: Easy.

If you have the progressive counterpart to the EU.

Then you can't get things through your house and Senate.

Okay? We couldn't pass any of that crap.

So let them do it. And then we'll just go, okay.

Well, we are one with the EU. And we will just follow their rules.

And we will just do that.

So it allows you to destroy all of American rights.

Just by blaming it on them.

I think that's why.

JUSTIN: That's 100 percent why.

I think at some point, this became the actual strategy for whoever was running the Biden administration.

That was the strategy. Like, we're not getting anything done.

It's over for us.

We will just let Europe do whatever it wants. And we will have to comply with it. And we will allow them to impose ESG on us, and all these other things.
GLENN: Because we can't get it through.
JUSTIN: Because we can't get it through.
GLENN: And I know, because the guy who is running the administration was Mike.

JUSTIN: Is it really? Wow.

Was he an okay guy?

GLENN: I don't know. His name was Mike. You know, at least he ran it on Mondays.

I don't know who ran it the rest of the week.

Glenn slams Boeing’s collapse: Air Force One stalled until 2035!

Qatar has offered President Trump a free jet to use as Air Force One while Boeing continues to delay the completion of the two it was contracted to build (maybe by another TEN YEARS). Glenn doesn’t believe Trump should accept the gift, but he also believes that much of this is Boeing’s fault. This once-great American company has lost its way, and Glenn has had enough!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Why is Boeing -- why did we order two 747s in 2018, and now Boeing is saying, they could come at 2028, which is a ten-year period.

Two planes.

But it may not be out until 2035, or '36.

How is that possible?

How is that possible?

I'll tell you how. They have forgotten who they are.

That's all that is required.

You know, and I don't think the workers have. Because look, my family -- much of my family worked at Boeing.

Still does.

They're working every day, at Boeing.

And they love Boeing. They don't like what it's become.

Because they know what it used to be like.

Because of their parents, or our grandparents.

And they know what Boeing is capable of. The reason why it takes this from Boeing, and we're accepting it, is because all of us have become like this.

We have become a society where no one says, yes, we can!

We can do that. Yes, we can.

Nobody says that, except if it's used by a politician to use as a slogan, to promote dependency, on a government, because what they're really selling I, is, no.

You really can't.

But with the government, you can.

That was -- that was -- that is not America!

It's not America!

We have to remember who we are.

And what the secret is.

And the secret is: Remembering the principles that got us here in the first place.
And then saying, yeah, I can do that.

I can do that. I can do anything.

You have been convinced that you can't, or you're not allowed to. What are you talking about?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Boeing, shame on you.

Shame on you.

Every employee should be going in and saying, to the management, shame on you, for shaming us.

Shame on you!

You become so much about, I don't even know what.

The numbers?

Corruption.

DEI.

I don't even know what your problem is Boeing.

But it didn't start with the workers.

It started in the home office.

It starts on the floor, where all the elites are gathering.

You've made it about something else, other than building airplanes.

And, you know, people will think, that they have no way to change things.

Imagine what it was like, in World War II.

In World War II, you are -- you're just a head of a company. You can't turn things around.

Okay.

Yesterday, I -- I bought something. I traded. I collect watches.

And I traded almost all of them in, for one watch.

Because this watch, is so important. Historically.

And I'm wearing it today.

And it's called the POW watch.

Because it comes from POWs.

Back in World War II, the -- the president of Rolex. Didn't know what to do. Didn't know how he could help.

And he's reading about all the prisoners that are at POW camps in Germany.

And he wants to do something.

So he sends -- he sends the head guy, the head POW of the camp. Like a box of watches.

And is like, you give them out to whoever you think deserves them. Or needs them.

And, you know, and don't worry about paying. Don't worry about paying us back.

Well, he's doing it as a gift. But what happens? These are some of the first, like, Daytonas. This is before the Daytona was ever made.

The coronagraph on the front.

So the guy gets it, and he's like, wait a minute.

Now we have a precision way to time things.

We can time the changing of the guards. We can time how long it takes for them to come around.
And we can find the averages. We now know time, because we have a precision timepiece.

The guy at Rolex, he had no idea, what he was doing. If you've ever watched the movie, the Great Escape, that's a true story. We have many of the pieces over at the museum.

We have a piece of the pedestal, that the old Franklin stove as a sat on. That they had to move, as they were digging.

We have a ton of the stuff that they used.

But one of the most important things they used was a watch.

Just like this one! A POW watch. There's only a handful of them left.

Why are they important? Because it was the watch that helped them escape!

Helped them escape. It didn't do the work for them.

The first thing they had to remember is: They're not POWs.

They're not -- they are British and American and French soldiers.

And they are meant to be free. And they're meant to get out of there.

Now, there were people that were like, no. Let's not do that. It will just cause so much trouble.

Thank God. Most of them said, yes, we can.

We are going to do it.

Now, Boeing, let me just give you this stat, as you -- as you're sitting there, thinking.

We can't complete this airplane, Glenn.

It's really complex.

Let me just give you a couple of stats.

There were three escapes. What were they?

Tom, Dick, and Harry.

I think that's what they were called. Three different escapes. Okay?

Let me just give you the stats on one of them. They dug a two-by-two-foot hole.

I mean, this just gives me claustrophobia thinking about it. They dug a two-by-two-foot hole, underneath the floorboards of one of the --

STU: Barracks.

GLENN: Barracks. Uh-huh.

They had to hide all of that, and they dig a two-by-two-foot hole. They first have to dig that 30 feet down.

Two-by-two-foot hole, 30 feet down.

Then, by the way, they don't have shovels. They don't have any of that stuff.

They are making whatever it is they use. Then in that two by 2-foot hole. Then they have to dig 336 feet horizontally.

So they can get out from under the wire. And arrive at the other side.

Okay?

3362 by two.

Just think about removing the dirt.

How do they remove that much different, without getting caught?

And it might be easier, when you're pushing dirt up from the -- from the hole. For the first 30 feet!

But what happens when you're going 300 -- what was it?

336 feet horizontally.

How do you get that dirt out?

They had to design almost a train track, that was bringing that dirt out, for every inch, they did.

Every inch of dirt, had to be removed.

And they couldn't just take it out, in, you know, wheel barrows and dump it someplace.

How could they move that much dirt without anyone knowing that they were moving that much dirt?

They devised a system in their -- in their pants, to where, each of them could put a little bit of dirt in their pants.

And then when they got out to the yard. And they would walk around, they would slowly let that dirt fall on to their shoes, and on to their ground, as they walked.

And then they just kind of kicked it into place. Do you know how much dirt that was?

And they never got caught? Shame on you, Boeing. Oh, you can't finish a couple of planes. Huh.

You know how long it took them to do that know.

With no pools. No electricity.

No lights. Can't get caught.

Covering it all up.

Ten months!

Ten months. It's called the Great Escape.

SARA: That's a really cute, uplifting story. But did you know AI is going to be able to tell us what our pets are saying?
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. All right.

I -- I want you to -- I want you to know, that what Sara says is right. Nobody has ever come back from this.

But no one had ever escaped from Stalin 13.

No one had ever done it.

No one had ever crossed the Rocky Mountains.

Nobody had ever gone to space.

No one had ever gone to the moon.

We are a nation of, that's never been done before.

That's what we do!

That's who we are.

Europe, that's not you.

But that is us!

Because every single one of us, someplace in our family history, somebody if you've been here, you know, prior to what? Maybe 1920, if your family was here prior to 1920, you came over on a boat.

Do you know what that was like?

I don't want to go on a boat back then. Especially if I was in a chattel class. My family came over in the 1800s. And I can guarantee you, none of them were up at the top deck of the boat. They were all, you know, shoveling poop out the window. I don't know they were doing.

But it wasn't pretty.

And now I'm going to piss this away?

When they worked so hard to get us here?

To have these -- see.

That, again, is the problem.

Once you forget why people came here in the first place, once you forget and are told, no. You can't.

You can't.

Yes, you can. If the government will help you.

But you can't do it on your own. Once you're taught that.

And you forget who you actually are.

This is why family heritage is so important.

Read about your family. Figure out who your family. Do your family tree.

There's somebody in there. In my family. When I got my family tree back.

This is what the person said to me. I would like to tell you, that there's somebody famous or great in your family. But we went back generations. There's -- it's littered with nobodies.

However, I found two heroes in my family.

Two. And they're not heroes by anybody else's standard. But they are mine!

I have two -- I had a great, great grandfather. Great, great uncle that fought in the Civil War. And they were on the right side.

Now, because they were my relation, they were caught like the first week. And they were put into Andersonville.

The worst, most notorious.

I mean, you want to talk about Auschwitz?

That was the Auschwitz of the South. They were put there, where thousands of people died. It was horrific.

One of them died. The other one survived. And according to his wife, was never the same from it. I can imagine. But they fought on the right side.

And one of them survived. And nobody survived Andersonville.

But he did!

You have to find your strength someplace. You have to find who you really are, you have to find -- and you'll find it usually when you find God.

Who you really are. And the strength that you actually have inside of you. And then, if you happen to be part of a group. Boeing. You need to look at each other. And go, come on, man.

Is this us?

For the love of Pete. Maybe it's because I grew up in Seattle.

You're Boeing.

You're Boeing.

That's what you want the world to think of you?

Boeing used to lead the way.

You're either going to lead the way. Or get the hell out of the way.

Give us our money back for those planes.

And we will find some company that will build them here in America.

What are you doing?

Either do it right, or get out of the way.

That's the message that should be heard from Boeing employees.

To their bosses. Like, now.

Democrats Support DANGEROUS Plan to JAIL Elon Musk?!

A new poll found that 71% of Democrats now want to put Elon Musk in jail for what he’s done with President Trump. But if that’s not insane enough – that they want to IMPRISON the guy who’s done the most for their climate crusade in modern history – the 71% is actually in favor of designing a NEW law to jail Musk. "How far are you going to fall, Democrats, before you realize, 'I might be on the wrong side?'" Glenn says. Not even AI can justify this, Glenn and Stu find out!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. 71 percent of Democrats now say that this person should go to prison. Who is that person besides Donald Trump?

STU: I was going to say, only 70 percent. It can't be Trump.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Who? Who? Who?

STU: I believe I know the answer to this. Elon Musk.

GLENN: Yeah, who is it? Elon Musk.

Elon freaking Musk! They now want to put Elon Musk in prison!

STU: The guy that saved the climate.

GLENN: Saved the climate.

Single-handedly saved it more for climate, than anybody else on the planet. Yes. Dare I say, even more than Al Gore.

STU: Wow, the guy who invented the internet.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He did.

STU: I will say, if you're looking at this honestly, with the left-wing calculus.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: Right? It is impossible to disagree with that.

That he's done more than anybody else. He basically took electric cars from nothing. No one wanted them. No one had them. And built the world's largest car company out of it.

Not to mention what he's done with SpaceX, which also has a massive climate motivation.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Not to mention, what he did -- what was it? SolarCity. The solar company.

That, you know, solar roofs. And solar panels.

How many conservatives do we know, that either owned Tesla. Or have solar on their house now. Or both!

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And not because of the conservative turn necessarily, to -- to --

GLENN: Because --

STU: Which is part of it, lately.

But because he was the first person to actually work.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

Now, just so you know, so you don't get down in the mouth. When I say, they want to put him in prison. You might say, what's the logical question here. 71 percent of Democrats want to put him in prison.

The logical question is.

STU: Why would he do it, it's a crime.

GLENN: Yeah. It's actually 71 percent of Democrats now want to pass a law, that puts him into prison!

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Yeah. So just when you thought it was bad.

No. It's much worse.

STU: Much, much worse. They want to retroactively -- not for a -- they can make him commit essentially.

GLENN: They are for an unidentified, nondescript law, that would put him in prison.

Wow! How far are you going to fall, Democrats, before you realize, I might be on the wrong side.

You now are for passing of -- coming up with a law, where the objective is, put that guy in jail!

I think there's no way to defend that.

I mean, I'm just working on it.

Just off the top of my head here.

I don't think I could find a way to defend -- would you ask Grok or ChatGPT. How could I defend creating a law, when -- whose objective is, only to put Elon Musk in jail?

How would I defend it.

STU: Well, I would have to ask Grok that question. Give me a defense of a lay that --

GLENN: No. Of writing a law, whose only objective is to put Elon Musk in jail. That's -- let's see what Grok has to say.

Because I don't even think Grok could come up with it.

Hopefully, the answer is: I can't justify that.

STU: I will get no. My Twitter account will get no reach after I type this sentence.

GLENN: No. Watch. I bet you, it will come up with something.

It doesn't. It plays fair with Elon Musk.

It won't defend him.

STU: No. I know.

I'm just saying, some part of this algorithm will pick up.

I'm trying to put Elon Musk in jail.

We will get re-tweets for a month.

The sole objective of jailing Elon Musk is a tough sell.
(laughter)
But let's give it a shot by framing it in a way that might appeal to reason, while acknowledging the obvious pitfalls.

The argument hinges on principles of accountability, deterrence, and symbolic justice. So it's riddled with issues that might make it more of a thought experiment, than a practical proposal.

First, such a law could be pitched as a response to concentrated power.

Musk's influence through wealth and control of companies, like Tesla, SpaceX.

GLENN: That's how they would have to do it. You would have to go, well, no. It's about concentrated power. That was not the question in the poll.

That's not the question in the poll. Question in the poll is, would you support the designing of a law to put Elon Musk in jail?

STU: That is -- again, this is why we harp on principles and foundations so much. Because no matter what the name is, in that sentence, the answer is always no! Like the principle of the moment. You would have to know that at the beginning. Right?

When you hear a sentence like that, you should reflexively say, absolutely not!

Regardless of who the person is. What winds up happening with a lot of people on the left. And I think it's a problem on the right to a lesser extent. Is, do I like the name that was mentioned?

Do I think bad things should happen to the person mentioned in the sentence? Like if we were to flip that around. Do you support a law that would throw, you know, George Soros in prison?

I do not -- I do not support a law that was created with the sole design of putting George Soros in prison.

If George Soros broke a law, he should go to prison. But I do not support a law created to put him in prison, even if I don't really like him.

Now, you can get to LeBron James territory. I might go along with you.

GLENN: Wait. But even with Soros, I would support a law that would say, you cannot do these things.

STU: In the future.

GLENN: Yeah. And that means, he has to stop doing those things.

STU: Right. But he does not get in trouble.

However, it's a principle of our country. You do not get in trouble for things that happen beforehand. Right?

You can't retroactively prosecute someone for a law that was passed afterward.

That is, I think a fundamental principle of our country.

And, of course, it should be applied equally to everyone. It shouldn't just be to one person, because of his name.

GLENN: Okay. What did Grok say? Because I just asked ChatGPT. I think ChatGPT's answer might be better than Grok.

Grok is Elon Musk's own company. So what did it say at the beginning?

What was the opening?

STU: It said, defending the law with the sole objective of jailing Elon Musk is a tough sell.

But let's give it a shot by framing it in a way that may appeal to reason, while ignoring the obvious pitfalls.

Listen to this. This is from ChatGPT.

Legally and morally, it's extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to justify writing a law whose sole and explicit purpose is to imprison one individual, such as Elon Musk, without violating core principles of justice, equality under law, and Constitutional protections.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: However, if the question is to attempt an argument, in favor of such a law, as a rhetorical or theoretical exercise, here is the best possible version of that case, though it is inherently flawed and dangerous!

STU: Right. And that's --

GLENN: Listen to that.

STU: Good. Good. That's a good --

GLENN: I couldn't know -- you know why AI is giving that answer? Because unlike you, so far, unlike anybody of the 71 percent of Democrats who are like, yeah.

I would be for that. It's still using critical thinking. It's still saying, wait a minute.
I have to check. I have to check this against a couple of other things. I have to ask a couple of questions. Is that right to do?

Is that Constitutional to do? Does that support liberty and justice and equality?

Under the law, or is this just a totalitarian state? If you don't ask those critical thinking questions, you're like, yeah, I don't like Elon Musk. Go to prison! You know, get the guillotine out. I want blood. That would be great.

STU: And, by the way, I will say, what you just heard us do, is literally happening inside the halls of Washington right now.

One of the things that's interesting about these programs. Which are re-- very good. At what they do.

Is there used to be a line, where a politician came up with a crazy idea.

Right?

And they would -- they would pop it up there. They would go to their attorneys. Could we do this?

And the attorneys would typically say, no. Of course not. You can't do that.

What's happening now is everybody has kind of an attorney in a box.

And they're going to it. And they're saying, hey. Give me the best case possible for this policy.

Which we all know is insane.

And it is providing that best case.

It's not --

GLENN: But listen to the best case.

STU: But they toss out all of the stuff you read already. Right?

And then they bring that to the American people, and try to get it to catch on.

You've heard examples of it.

One example I'll give you of this. Is the one that Joe Biden did right at the end of his presidency. When he just declared the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

I -- this is what they do. They go in there, and they get some justification, that's not the justification. Not the truth.

It's a possible argument, that could theoretically, maybe be the truth.

Maybe. And then they just go to the public with it. And try to enforce it.

Now, it didn't work.

Everybody just ignored Joe Biden because of how he was asleep when he said it.

But it is a concern now.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to how he says.

This is how you do it.

If I want to justify it. Justify a law that puts Elon Musk in -- it says, in this hypothetical, Elon Musk by virtue of his control over critical infrastructure, Starlink.

Platforms for public discourse. Discourse.

Like Twitter. Or X.

Massive transportation. And defense contracts.

Tesla, space, and global influence.

Could be seen as a private actor with state-like power.

Okay.

You're like, yeah!

All right. Then what about everyone else, like I don't know.

George Soros.

What about Jeff Bezos?

What about anybody on your side?

What about anybody?

Once you cross this Rubicon, you don't go back.

But, anyway, let me -- could be seen as an actor with state-like power.

But without state-level checks.

If he repeatedly evades regulatory oversight. Or is found manipulating markets. Weaponizing satellites in geopolitical conflicts.

Or undermining US sovereignty through opaque foreign deals.

Congress might argue, that national interest justifies emergency action.

From that vantage point, a law targeting Musk might be framed, not as a personal vendetta, but as a necessary surgical-like strike to prevent a modern-day oligarch from becoming untouchable, a figure above the law, immune to consequences.

So you would have to have all of those other things happening. And then maybe you could make the case.

But what is the moral detriment?

Then you just have opened the door for everybody going to jail?

And you have no -- you have no meaning behind life.

You could write a law to make anybody go to jail.

And that -- that is the thing.

Isn't that the thing, that everybody is saying, that they're trying to avoid?

I know I'm trying to avoid that from the right and the left.

I don't want laws to be personal.

I want to be a nation of laws. Not a nation of men.

And men. What do men do?

Well, when you're a nation not of laws. And you're a nation of men, men can say, that person needs to go to prison.

Because I don't like that person.

Which?

That's what a nation of men do. A nation of laws is what George Washington said we now have.

We have a nation of laws. And not a nation of men.

A nation of laws don't allow you to single one individual out.

It means, you have to look to the law.

Are they violating something?

What are they doing that is violating the law?

And if they're not violating the lay.

You just don't like it.

Well, then there's nothing you can do about it.

Unless you want to start compromising your own values.

Remember, gang, this cuts both ways.

This is why everybody is like, well, look at.

Donald Trump. You can't put Joe Biden in jail.

Yes, you can.

But you wouldn't put Joe Biden in jail, because he's Joe Biden.

You put Joe Biden and his family in jail, because they're criminals.

Now, I'm not saying they are. I'm saying, there should have been an investigation.

Like there would have been on Donald Trump.

There should have been an investigation.

And if he broke the law, then he and his family should go to jail.

But not if he didn't break the law.

You don't just make things up. Letitia James.

I mean, this is -- this is what the left -- this is what our friends who are Democrats need to understand.

When you have 71 percent say, we should write a law that can put him in prison.

You should understand, there is an almost 100 percent chance you have become the fascist.

You cannot do that. In a free country.

Biden’s Reckless Biolabs Nearly Sparked Pandemic 2.0

Under the Biden administration, a lax safety environment at the most dangerous biolabs in America could have caused a second pandemic, Trump NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tells Glenn. He points to Fort Detrick's Integrated Research Facility, where an employee allegedly recently cut a hole in a coworker’s hazmat suit with the goal of causing sickness. “This goes back to the Biden administration,” he says about the only story that has “scared” him since starting his job. Dr. Bhattacharya explains how the Trump administration plans to increase security in our labs. Plus, he gives his take on the President’s executive order to make pharmaceuticals cheaper for Americans and his previous EO to pause gain-of-function research.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So I am thrilled to have Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on. He's from the National Institutes of Health.

I want to talk to him about being science back into the NIH.

There was a lab leak. And I want to get to that here in a second.

But I have to touch on the news of the take. And it's not really his area of expertise.

But the president just signed an executive order to lower drug costs.

Doctor, welcome to the program. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Any comment on that, as we get started here?

JAY: Sure. It's something I studied in a past life when I was a professor. The difference in product prices between the United States and Europe is sharp and alarming.

And it has been persisting for decades.

Sometime between two and five times. Sometimes as high as 10 times, of the same drug as Europeans do.

And, you know, as a professor who has a -- you know, has a deal in economics, I'll tell you. When you see a persistent price differences like that. That indicates a very unhealthy market.

And this particular state, what it means is that, Americans. American consumers, essentially are being taken advantage of.

American patients are paying, you know, through the nose, for drugs that are -- that Europeans paid much less for.

And the reason is, that the European countries will tell drug companies, if you don't lower the drug prices to a very low level, you know, just above -- then we're not going to cover you at all.

And the -- what the drug companies, told Americans, if we don't pay higher drug prices, there won't be any RD on drugs. What the president and the executive order does is it tell Europeans, look, this is not fair to Americans. This is actually lowering the investment, that we could possibly be making on R&D for drugs.

And so they should be paying prices that are equal to the level Americans pay. And the Americans pay much lower prices than we do -- much closer -- it's a huge move forward.

And now, we'll have to see, what Europeans do. Ask what drug companies do in response. Does to me, I've been hearing about this problem for decades.

It's the first time a president has really taken a big step to really try to address it.

GLENN: As someone who is in research for a very long time.

Let me -- doesn't the promise of AI, AGI, ASI. Lessen this whole thing of we need gobs of money to be able to do R&D. Because that should, you know, in maybe five years from now, begin to do -- to cut those costs dramatically.

To take that chair away from the table. Or put that chair back into the table, if you will.

JAY: Yeah. No. That's quite -- just to give one example.

There's this technology called Alpha Fold. That allows scientists to much more easily understand how proteins will fold on each other.

And how -- and as a result, hopefully, anyway, dramatically reduce drug development expenditures.

Drug development is -- you still have to run randomized, large-scale clinical trials, and those will be expensive.

But the initial perception of drug development with AI. And as well as the clinical trials will be much more efficiently run over time.

The idea that you need to have trillions of dollars, you know. Tens of billions of dollars, to develop a single drug.

We hope, it will become a thing of the past.

In any case, there's no reason why the Americans should shoulder the burden of the whole rest of the world. The developed world should be bearing this burden together.

GLENN: Let me switch.

You know, I recently reached out to you, because I wanted to talk to you about the HHS halting work at high risk infectious disease labs around the world.

And I -- I can't believe this is true. But you tell me.

So there was an incident that -- at a -- at a bio lab. That apparently, what happened is. There was a -- I don't know.

A personal squabble between people.

And a contractor, actually punched a hole in the other person's biolab suit.

I don't know. To get them sick.

Or whatever.

But it was -- I mean, is that what happened, at that bio lab?

I think it was at Ft. Diedrick.

JAY: That's exactly what happened.
I haven't been scared about anything, except for that one thing.

So I learned about this, about three weeks into the job.

I've been in the job, since the beginning of April.

It turns out, that there had been an incident a few weeks before.

In fact, right before I signed -- I like joined the NIH director.

A lab had much run -- part of the lab is run by the National Institute of Health.

And it's a -- which is the highest biosecurity lab.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: I mean, the lab, the experiments done there, are on some really nasty bugs.

You know, Ebola. A whole bunch of viruses and pathogens.

If it gets out in the population or if it injects lab workers, it's for -- it's quite deadly.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: And what I've learned was that there's been incidents, just a couple of weeks before I joined as director of the NIH. Where a lab worker has cut a hole in the -- in a bio containment suit of a fellow worker with the express intention of getting that worker infected.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JAY: If that is -- and apparently, it was over some lover's spat. And I'm not sure exactly the details.

There's an ongoing investigation of that.

What I learned was that -- that the -- not just the incident that happened.

Which actually has a threat not just to the worker.

GLENN: The world.

JAY: If these gets out.

I was actually -- I mean, I was absolutely livid.

And so what I do, is I order the lab -- an operational shutdown. Secured all of the vials of the nasty bugs, in a safe environment. Made sure the animals were cared for, that they're in the lab.

And we're going to -- we're not going to open that up, until the safety of the lab is absolutely solid.

The contractor that was overseeing this. I think did a very last week job. What I learned, this goes back to the Biden administration.

That the safety environment in the lab, essentially, downplayed these kinds of security problems.

If you're going to run experiments on these bugs.

And personally, I'm not sold that all of these are worth doing.

But in any case, if you're going to run. Have an absolute responsibility to have zero to do for safety problems.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: The issue here, is not just a one-off thing.

It's something problematic in the safety culture of this lab. Where I don't -- I cannot guarantee that if we reopen the lab right now. It would be a safe environment.

While we reopen the lab. I'm sure that's the case.

GLENN: Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Shouldn't that person be punished.

That really is attempted murder. And maybe on a mass scale.

JAY: I mean, there's an ongoing investigation.

I shouldn't say more about this.

It's one of those things.

I was actually actively scared when I first heard --

GLENN: Yeah. Americans are actively scared. Because none of this stuff should be happening.

We are just. We're just an accident or a stupid move. Or an intentional leak away from mass death.

And, you know, you keep hearing people like Bill Gates saying, we're on the verge of another pandemic.

Why?

Why?

I mean, why are we on the verge of another pandemic?

Do you think we are?

JAY: I mean, you know, pandemics happen. They happen all throughout history.

The key thing to me, though, Glenn. We don't want to cause one.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: That increases the risk of them.

This past pandemic. Is that it was very likely caused by actions aimed at stopping pandemics from happening.

GLENN: Yeah.

JAY: Almost this hubris.

It was hubris.

This idea that we could somehow, if we go into the case of China and all the wild places.

Bring all those viruses we find there.

It happens that we find there. Into the lab.

Catalog them.

We can somehow prevent all pandemics from happening.

Making them more dangerous to humans.

We can somehow as a result of that exercise, make it less likely to have pandemics happen.

Of course, what we found out, the opposite is true.

You can't do this work entirely safely.

And actually, even if you fully accomplish what is the same of that sort of research program.

Which is to go out, and find the pathogen.

You wouldn't protect anybody against the pathogen. Because what would happen is, when and if the outbreak happens, whatever countermeasures you denied for them would already be out of date.

Because the illusionary biology of these viruses is you take very rapidly.

And so when they come out of the population, the countermeasures you prepared for, which you never attempted in any humans, very likely would not work.

GLENN: Have we stopped all of the gain of function stuff now? Are you convinced it's done?

JAY: Yeah. So last week, President Trump signed in an absolutely historic executive order. Which puts a pause. A full pause on all of gain of function work throughout the government.

And we -- we implemented a pause at the NIH.

And I'm sure the government has done the same.

Over the next 90 days, we will develop the framework.

Here's how the framework will work.

You have to be a little careful here. Gain of function can mean many things.

For instance, insulin is produced via the gain of function exercise. There's no risk of a pandemic being codified, but you take a bacteria and E. coli.

You change, so they can produce insulin. That's how you produce human insulin.

That's a completely safe thing to do. On the other hand, you take a virus like a bat virus, and then the -- that has these sort of coronavirus-like properties.

Add a (inaudible) and manipulate it so they can infect human cells more easily.

Well, now you have the potential to cause a pandemic. If you're going to do an experiment like that, you the scientist alone. Or scientist alone, should not get to decide whether the risk is worth taking. The public should have a say.

The public should be able to say, no, that's -- no matter what knowledge you're going to gain from that. It's not worth the risk of causing a worldwide pandemic, that will kill 20 million people and cost $25 trillion or something.

And that's exactly what they want to do. They say, if you assign -- if I assign this to a project, the public will have a veto over that.

They know you're not allowed to do it.

Because most science won't be affected by this.

Most science has no chance of causing a pandemic. Any time that it does, it will be the subject of this very, very strict regulatory framework.

GLENN: We're on with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is a hero in my book, now the director of the National Institutes of Health.

Is an apology good enough for the National Institute of Health? I mean, should anybody go to jail for what has happened?

And what is it like to walk into that building? When you're enemy number one, to many in that building. You know, during the time pandemic.

JAY: You know, it's been interesting. It's certainly a big turn of faith.

Where I -- a devastating takedowns. And called all kinds of names. By folks, who are in this building, where I now lead.

At the same time, I found many, many excellent scientists. Many people devoted to -- to advancing human knowledge.

For benefiting. For the benefit of all people.

I mean, most scientists are like that. They're not trying to create havoc.

And so I've been trying to find out.

And I found out a lot -- you asked, what should happen, with regard to policy.

To me, apology is -- I mean, I -- I think the key thing. Personally, I'm very happy to apologize, on behalf of American public health. To the American people, to the failure during COVID. The key thing going forward is reform.

How do we change the institutions? So that it's focused on the health needs of the American people.

Rather than these utopian schemes to end all pandemics. Adding no heat whatsoever to the risk that they take.

Science is very, very powerful.

Kind of an idea and institution. But it needs to be focused on real, human needs.

Real -- particularly, for the NIH. Real human health needs.

And there have to be guardrails so that scientists understand, they operate in the context of public support. We -- we function on taxpayer money. We have to answer to the taxpayers.

So that's been the challenge.

Keep the light of science alive.

While still reminding scientists that we are not acting just as -- as if we were like independent actors like God. We are actually beholden to the American people.

GLENN: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. I unfortunately, have to take a network break.

I would love to have you back for a longer podcast.

Thank you. Thank you. For everything you did during the COVID nightmare.

And thank you for standing up so strongly now.

And congratulations on being our director of the NIH.

JAY: Thank you, Glenn. So good to talk.

GLENN: God bless you. Buh-bye.

White House Official Addresses Criticism of Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill"

President Trump has promised to team up with Congressional Republicans to pass a “big, beautiful bill” chock full of campaign promises, like “no tax on tips,” “no tax on overtime,” and major spending cuts. But as the bill’s progress drags on, are the Republicans to blame, is Trump starting to compromise too much, and will he allow Democrats to increase taxes for the rich? Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, joins Glenn to address the criticism. He discusses what Trump’s real strategy is, whether the bill will restore government spending to 2019 levels, how DOGE has been helping, whether the bureaucracy will actually shrink, and whether Congress will codify any of Trump’s policy changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Russell Vought. Office of Management and Budget. He is the director.

And one of my personal heroes. And I think yours too, Stu. Welcome to the program, Russell.

RUSSELL: Thanks, Glenn. Appreciate you having me on.

GLENN: You bet. All right. So I want to talk about the Republicans. Because I believe they're kind of a waste of space.

They are not doing the things that I think the president promised. And that is, cut the budget.

And cut regulation, in dramatic ways.

And President Trump has been playing very, very nice with them.

Trying to get them to do what I think is something. By passing the big, beautiful bill.

Can you tell me where we stand on this. And what's in it.

RUSSELL: We're working through. Right now, the House has a -- they're trying to meet their instructions.

They basically passed the budget that would have 100 -- or 1.5 trillion in savings.

And about four and a half trillion in tax relief.

And they are working through to get a bill that can pass.

And we're right there with them, trying to get it done.

And I think it would be a big savings. We could go north of that.

And I think that's -- that is the goal, to try to figure out, how to make this a historic opportunity, to both extend the tax cuts.

Do the tax cuts, the president wanted to do on the campaign. No tax on over time.

Some other things. No tax on Social Security benefits.

And then to really make sure that, you know, this is an opportunity to have some of the -- the highest reforms to mandatory spending since the 1990s. And there's a lot we can do in this area.

And I think that the House right now, is trying to put these bills together.

You know, we spend so much time debating whether you have a couple of bills. Or one bill.

We lost some time in that.

And we were trying to catch up.

And I think they're hard at work. And we have to be right by them, to help get them done.

GLENN: So when are we expecting to get this voted on, and possibly go through.

RUSSELL: My hope is that they pass it out of committee, the two big committees that we've seen. Energy and commerce. And then go to budget. And set up a vote thereafter on the House floor. That's our hope. That's what we're working toward.

I don't think they've noticed yet, the committees. But that's what we're working --

GLENN: So, Russ, can you do me a favor?

I mean, I'm sure you've done this to Congress. But I don't know the American people really understand how dire this situation is.

I mean, I've got a letter from a family member who I just love dearly. A couple weeks ago.

And he said, Glenn. What the president is doing. I said, well, what the president is doing, is trying to save the country from The Great Reset.

Because a reset is coming!

And you want it to be towards shareholder capitalism. Not stakeholder capitalism.

But with our debt the way it is, the interest rates, that we're now paying. Bigger than the defense budget.

No country has ever survived this.

Can you give us some idea on -- on how serious -- I mean, Congress needs to move a little quicker.

RUSSELL: Look. We have $36 trillion in debt.

When I left office the first time.

Under President Trump. We had about $300 trillion per year in interest costs.

Now it's above the defense spending. At $900 billion.

GLENN: 1.1.

RUSSELL: 1.1. So we've got this enormous interest cost, as a result. And it's one of the reasons why, we've incurred it from the administration on balance.

On taking dramatic actions through DOGE. Our budget that you referenced in the lead-up. The lowest non-defense spending, since 2000 adjusted for inflation.

And so -- and I think what we've been trying to do to deal with kind of the paralysis on Capitol Hill, is to change the reality on the ground.

I mean, I think that's what DOGE has done, in a fundamental way. And we will try to make those savings permanent in a couple of different ways.

But it's to force Congress.

If they want to be a part of the process, you know, come alongside of us.

But we will move inasmuch as we can. Within the parameters of the law, and the Constitution. And we will move as fast, and aggressively as possible. To change the reality on the ground. With reductions in force.

With reorganizations.

With doing a dramatic review of spending, that doesn't have to go out.

There's a whole thing.

Set of tools in our box.

That we will use aggressively. To get Congress moving in our direction.

Because we can't -- we cannot be in the normal situation, as an administration, where we just kind of send bills up. And wait on them.

GLENN: Right.

RUSSELL: We have one big bill that needs to occur.

We've tried to put everything, as we possibly can. On that.

Because it has procedural protection in the Senate.

But -- and even in that. It was part of our thinking, was to make sure we limit the number of things that we have to go to Congress for.

GLENN: The -- the taxes.

I mean, I was hoping that we were going to get new tax cuts.

And not just the -- not just the renewal of the Trump tax cut.

But I was hoping Congress would get serious.

And we would get even deeper than that.

And now, the White House, last night. The president last night tweeted.

You know, I know that Congress, you know, they're going to be wishy-washy on -- you know, they will get blamed, if they raise any taxes on the very rich.

But I will go along with it.

If they want to do that.

That's a little scary. We should be going the other way. Shouldn't we?

RUSSELL: Well, I think the president ran a set of tax proposals. That he was very excited about.

Committed out.

Designed toward the working class.

That we, from an economic standpoint. Also believe are really critical to getting more and more of -- of labor force participation at it, of this part of the economy.

And we think it would be a huge boon to the -- the impetus on the economy, the growth.

And so, we are living in a world where, you know, we don't -- we don't have the ability to have unlimited tax cuts.

GLENN: Right. But is it --

RUSSELL: You're seeing a lot of different navigation on that.

GLENN: But is it possible to go back to the 2019 budget. I mean, why can't we just reset and say, we're going back to that budget.

It was fine then. It will be fine now.

RUSSELL: We're trying to do that with the budget that you saw, that we sent out.

That is essentially what that budget represents. It's an effort to go back, non-adjusted for inflation.

It goes back to 2017. It's the 35 percent cut for most programs, when we account for maintaining infrastructure and veteran spending.

But that's what we're trying to do.
Do the entitlements, the mandatory spending, the interest. Do those have an impact on our ability to go back overnight to 2019?

Yes, they do.

And so that's really what we're trying to say.

And I do think that there's a newfound desire to cut spending, even in the context of the tacks cuts on the Hill.

You have a ton of members that are really trying to make sure, this is either deficit neutral.

Or you have -- this is a moment, that can be used for significant mandatory reform.

GLENN: So to get there. Are tax hikes on the rich part of that plan?

RUSSELL: Well, listen, the President put out a truce this morning. He said, look.

I think he said, a couple different minds. He has always been very focused on the things that he ran on.

This was not something that he ran on.

The -- the no tax on overtime.

GLENN: Right. Right.

No tax on tips. Yeah.

RUSSELL: No tax on tips. All that kind of thing.

That's really what we've been trying to fit in. To the amount that Congress is ready to reduce.

At the same time, we have to spend the tax cuts from his first term.

GLENN: I saw in the budget, we are increasing defense and border security.

Is that border.

Is that why this is happening?

RUSSELL: On the border. We want to increase -- and really, buy out all of our increases, over the next three to four years. In one bill.

And we're doing that. This is a paradigm shift. I'm really glad you asked.

We no longer want to be in a situation, where we have to get Democrat votes. Defense increases.

That then, they put us in a situation, where they have to lever up and demand -- not only on our habits. But that we have to increase non-defense spending.

Because we need their votes in the Senate.

Secondly, they flatout oppose any border spending. They put us on the precipice of a shutdown every single time, we want to increase spending for ICE or the wall.

And so our view is to -- to actually look to how they did it. And then the Joe Biden administration.

And put those increases, on the mandatory one big, beautiful reconciliation bill. And then put us in a situation where we have a united Republican Party.

So your defense hawks are not working against us in the appropriations process, to actually get non-defense cuts. That's what we're trying to do.

And then we have DOGE working over time. Pete Hegseth with reforms. Obviously, there's waste there as well.

And at least in this first year. To make sure, we would reinvest there. And let the new leaders there, get a sense of where the reforms need to be.

GLENN: So with all the DOGE stuff. A, this has nothing to do with DOGE, but I was glad to see Kash Patel come out yesterday and say, no, no, no. I will go with the budget.

On the FBI. Because he was saying, no. We can't live on that. We need more. And cut, cut, cut. And I was glad to see, that he kind of changed his position on that yesterday.

But, you know, with DOGE, I'm seeing that Congress is like, well, we're not going to take all of the DOGE recommendations.

Why?

JOHN: Yeah, I mean, that's the question Congress has asked. Number one, send all these rescission bills. Rescission bills. And I'm willing to send rescissions bills.

Our administration is. The Trump administration is. But, man, they have to pass.

And so if they don't pass. It passes our ability to use some of the tools that we would have executively. To spend less of that money.

And so we are working with them.

That's why I haven't formerly sent up the 9th round of rescissions from DOGE.

I am having great conversations, surprisingly with the appropriations committee. Historic in and of itself.

And they are trying to think through. Okay. What's the version that we could do this a little bit different?

But hit the same amount of savings?

That's a healthy back and forth. I think that in and of itself.

This is a little bit different, Glenn.

This is more like the early 1980s. When Reagan first came in, than anything we've seen recently.

Congress is saying, we -- instead of, we will ignore your budget. Saying, we will want to hit your number.

So it's early. I don't know if that will materialize. But I am optimistic about it.

GLENN: How -- how optimistic are you?

Because, you know, I've talked to the president about this. Just a couple of weeks ago.

And I said, we are playing such a dangerous game. Because we have to.

I mean, I think America -- I mean, no country has ever turned around from this point. And we have to.

And it just requires some really big boy pants, to do it.

But I'm -- I'm just so concerned about it.

And I'm -- you know, I'm hoping that we can get the reduction, and the staff.

I know that you're -- you know, you're doing a fantastic job on reducing the number of federal employees. Do you believe we'll be able to get these things, actually codified, so if things don't go well. Or even if they do go well.

But it's not President Trump, the next time. That this remains. This path remains this direction?

RUSSELL: I do. I think if you zoom out for a second, we will come away from this year, in particular. We have to know when to cut spending in like two or three decades.

You know, Paul Ryan kind of put us in this cul-de-sac forever. I think we will come away this year with probably the largest mandatory savings ever, or adjusted for inflation.

Since the 1997 balanced budget. That's going to happen.

I think we will see the appropriations process fixed for the first time, because of our talking about executive tools like rescissions and empowerment.

It's going to cause the appropriations process, a return to separation of powers. That Congress actually listened to our cuts.

GLENN: Wow.

RUSSELL: And we may not get all of them. But we will get some of them. And I think we will see something that is progress on that front.

Third, I think -- I remember coming on this show, in the first term.

And they're just like, the extent to which, the career bureaucracy is just impregnable. Is totally unacceptable. You pushed on this.

And I think, many of us. The president. Elon has spent a ton of time thinking about this.

And I think that will be -- one of the biggest stories, the extent to which, the things that have been done. You know, the fork in the road. Has fundamentally changed the reality on the ground.

And so we have a much smaller. We will have a much smaller bureaucracy, as a result of it.

Notwithstanding the laws that are on the books, that have been here thus far.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I stay away from Washington, DC, you know, as much as I try to stay away from the plague. But next time, I'm up, Russ, I would love to sit down with you, and do a long form interview with you.

You're really one of the good guys. Thank you for everything you're doing.

JOHN: You've got it. Thanks, Glenn.