RADIOApril 10, 2025

Dire warning from economist: Trump’s next move could save—or sink—the economy

President Trump suspended his global tariffs for 90 days, except for China. But is this strategy enough to win the trade war and fix the economy? Glenn speaks with renowned economist Richard Werner, who makes the case that Trump’s next move should take place here at home. It’s not enough, he argues, to pressure the big banks. He must also cut the government red tape and help local banks flourish. Plus, Werner also argues that Trump is fighting a hidden enemy in Europe: the CIA.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Richard Werner. He is an economist. You can find him at ProfessorWerner.org.

ProfessorWerner.org. Richard Werner. Professor, how are you, sir?

RICHARD: Very well, thank you. Good to be on your program.

GLENN: Yeah. Good to have you on again. You are looking at the situation, and it is changing by the hour. What are you feeling, especially you're -- you're from Germany. Are you still in Germany today? Or are you here in the United States?

RICHARD: I'm actually in the US, in Florida as well.

GLENN: All right. What is happening in Germany and in Europe, and how is -- how this whole trade thing affecting everybody?

RICHARD: Well, it is affecting everyone.

Because actually, if you have the sort of lists of terrorists.

And where it was last week. Presently suspended.

If you look at the numbers. For some countries.

There were significant changes. And potentially, even now, that they're being suspended.

They're still in place with China. Very, very high numbers.

You mentioned, you know, in triple digit percentage. Tariff.

To China. And China retaliating. And as it's escalating. That's very dangerous.

Because China is part of the supply chains, across the globe. Even in other countries.

And, of course, the US.

Trump has a point. The US is the most attractive market. And exports being -- so it's true. That the US had some leverage there.

The question is, what do we want to achieve? And how do we go about it, in order to make sure we actually achieve it?

There is a risk, a situation which it will escalate, particularly if there's confrontation now.

Later coming from China, it's a bad guy. And, you know, it's -- it's in Asia. It's very important, not to lose faith.

And not to be publicly humiliated.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

RICHARD: And at the moment, you know, of course that's why they can easily give in. Want to shut the opportunity, the opening for compromise.

GLENN: So what would --

RICHARD: At the moment, the way it's done, it is very hard.

GLENN: President Trump said this yesterday. He said: Look, it's important in China, that they don't lose faith. That they're not humiliated. And he said, I feel like they're being humiliated right now.

So what should he be doing, while still staying tough?

What kind of opportunity, should be presented, to de-escalate this?

RICHARD: I think it's important to take it off the -- I mean, President Trump is very -- publicly. But maybe in this case, where we are at this point.

It's an important thing.

You know, the public focus.

And have some private conversations with China's leadership.

And maybe they even suggest a way in which they may be done. Essentially, someone needs to face a solution that makes both sides look good.

This can be done because the Chinese are as much interested in, you know -- as President Trump is, they are commoners, trading, sort of doing deals.

So it just has to be done, in such a way, that they're not forced into a corner.

And then they feel obliged to also, you know, stand up to all of these people. And to then -- they actually should be at this stage.

So I think it can be done.

I mean, I would be glad to help. You know.

Get me into the Trump team.

I had good relations. I was invited to be the professor of finance as well, the top university, Fudan in Shanghai met very senior people in China. And I've been in Japan for 12 years. And I know how to talk to Asia.

At the moment, it was perhaps -- yeah. This -- this lack of the right approach.

But it's about, as you mentioned, that President Trump is now acknowledging this.

And I think this -- this creates an opening.

And with the right advice. The other point I would like to make actually. Is that I think it is very smart of President Trump to raise fundamentally, you know, the tariff issue.

And how the US has not always been treated equally by other countries. Right?

When it comes to trade and tariffs. That is very valid.

And Paris in history, have been, well, actually mixed. They have been very successful and good for America and other countries. They use in combination with the right policies.

GLENN: Yes, uh-huh.

RICHARD: Domestic policies. That's where I think the Trump team needs some good advice. The Trump team knows the official mainstream neoclassical economics is not to be trusted.

And that's very true. But they're still acting with the right advice. I'm an expert of high brow economics, and I think the US can have 15 percent growth in 14 years like China had.

Which can be done. There is no real --

GLENN: What needs to happen? What needs to happen? What is he missing?

I think what is missing is the Congress doing their jobs. And putting other things in place. What are you saying, that is missing?

RICHARD: Yes. Well, a key thing is -- is to do with money.

And those who create money.

Now, the fed has created a lot of money.

Too much. And has caused inflation and everything.

But actually, normally central banks, only create 3 percent of the money.

97 percent of the money supply normally is created by the banks!

The banking system.

And the banks normally. And this is capitalism.

Where central planners are making decisions.

Private, commercially. Enterprises making decisions.

And so the more diverse banking system.

Particularly, the more small local banks you have, the stronger the economy. The stronger job creation.

GLENN: Yes.

RICHARD: And that's where in the past, the US has been extremely strong. But in recent years, you know, the -- have really reduced the number of small local banks.

And it's collapsed in the number of community banks. And local banks. Almost across the United States.

And that's very bad for job creation, and then competitiveness. And China is the best case in point.

You know, they used to have this centralized Soviet-style system, you know, in only one bank.

And then when they deleted -- you know, in 1978. He felt -- let's forget about all this ideology, under Mao. Chairman Mao. Let's deliver -- let's deliver performance and growth.

And how do we do it? Well, let's learn from those who did it.

And it went to Japan and ask China, what's your secret of success?

And they told them. You need -- you need banks. How many banks do you have?

One bank. Are you serious? For 600 million people at the time. Something like that.
You need more banks than that, how about 5,000. And that's what he did.

He went back to China to create this 5,000 small banks, local banks, billionaire banks. Credit unions. Regional banks. Rural savings banks. Conventional banks.

GLENN: So what does Trump need to do to do that here? What does he need to do to create that here? What should he be encouraging?

RICHARD: Well, first of all, one needs to take the pressure off the small banks to merge. Because the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have been closing banks. That's why thousands of banks have disappeared in the US. Job. Job creation. Job creation. But who is the main employer? It is small firms.

They've been employed between 65 and 75 percent of total employment. And there's a special thing about small firms, and they can't get money from Capitol markets.

GLENN: Correct.

RICHARD: Wall Street is not open to them. The only external source of funding is banks. Local banks that -- big banks don't lend to small firms. It doesn't make sense. So who lends to small firms?

It's only small banks. That's why American policy is very strong. They were going a few decades back. More than 20,000 banks.

And they need these thousands and thousands of small local banks. Community banks.

But the regulators. And the centralization. Have led to mergers. And the number of banks have been going down rapidly.

For some reason, they think it's a good idea. Same in Europe. You know, the European Central Bank says, we have too many banks. We have to close the small local bank. Well, that's how you kill the middle class.

That's really what happens to the middle class. That the small firms are not supported anymore. There's new technology coming out. The small firms. They're not necessarily, the innovators.

But they're ones that have to quickly adapt, adopt a new technology, but for that, you need money!

If you have a small local bank that knows you, you will get your funding. You can upgrade. You can maintain the market share and stay competitive. And expand jobs, basically.

But in countries, where the banking system gets too concentrated.

The US now is at risk of becoming one of those countries.

Looking at the UK.

Five big banks. The small firm gets nothing from these big banks.

They have to do big business.

They lend to the hedge funds. In billions.

And that works for the big banks.

Is it really good that the US is headed that way? No. We have to change that. So we have to change policies, at the FDIC. They have to be bank friendly.

And therefore small firm friendly. And therefore employment friendly.

If we combine tariffs with the right monitoring and banking policy, the US can be hugely successful.

You know, Glenn, just help me to get to the Trump team.

GLENN: I'll put a word in for you. But I'm lucky to talk to the janitor.

So, Richard, let me -- let me go to Europe here for a second.

Because I think what Trump is trying to do, on many of his things is to break this elite, almost world economic forum grip on dismantling the West. He doesn't believe in the -- you know, slow decline of the West.

He is looking to change directions, 180 degrees.

And I think that's part of what these tariffs on Europe and everything else. Is to say, look, we're going in a different direction. We have to go in a different direction.

Who is with me?

Die read it that way, or not?

RICHARD: Well, I think that is a similarly -- is one possibility. And it would be -- you know, that would be a good goal. Because Europe is really still under the World Economic Forum and Deep State.

GLENN: Yeah.

RICHARD: And including the US Deep State. You know, there's variations in Europe where you get that. Sometimes when President Trump ends up arguing with European leaders, he's still arguing with his old enemy, which is the CIA.

They're in Europe. They have all their assets in place.

In the CIA app. You know, the CIA funded his program, which brought Klaus Schwab to the floor.

GLENN: Jeez.

RICHARD: So it's something to realize.

He's still planting the old enemy. He won domestically. But the old enemy is strong in Europe and other places still.

Where they've had to have a foothold to -- to the traditional military foreign basis, where the US army is, and so on.

To kind of -- and that's -- that explains a lot of his friction. So, yes. In many ways. It's good that Europe sees, okay. There will be a change in policy.

But they're just going to now run this bill under instruction, from their minders at the CIA.
Just really engaged the United States, against Trump.

They're talking about, well, we have to decouple. We can't trust America anymore at all.

GLENN: I know.

STEPHEN: And when the reality is, they're now just totally still following their minders. The Deep State minders.

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.

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.

71% of Dems Back Law to Lock Up 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.